C. V. N. SASTRY, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel on both sides.

( 2 ) THIS is a revision filed by the tenants questioning the orders of eviction passed against them by the two Courts below concurrently under the provisions of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (in short the Act ).

( 3 ) THE respondent/landlord is an advocate practising in City Civil Court at Secunderabad. The suit premises is a non-residential building wherein the petitioners are carrying on wholesale business in textiles. The premises consists of two rooms, one on the ground floor and the other on the first floor, located in a busy commercial area known as Tobacco Bazaar in Secunderabad. The rent payable is Rs. 400. 00 per month. The respondent/land-lord filed the eviction petition on the sole ground that he requires the suit premises for his personal use, that is, for the purpose of carrying on his profession. It is his case that presently he is running his office in a rented premises in R. P. Road, Secunderabad, which is very small, congested and wholly insufficient for running his office. The said rented premises consists of a single room on the mezzanine floor measuring 9 1/2 x 14 1/2 feet. There is hardly any space available to keep his library and other office furniture and thereby he and his clients are put to lot of inconvenience and hardship. Further his landlady has been pressing him for abnormal increase of the rent or in the alternative to vacate the same. Hence he bona fide requires the suit premises for his own occupation.

( 4 ) THE petition was resisted by the respondents denying the said allegations and contending, inter alia, that the respondent-landlord has been carrying on his professional work in the rented premises in his occupation without any inconvenience whatsoever for the past 20 years, that the said rented premises is situated in a very posh and central locality like Rashtrapati Road, that the suit premises which is situated in a bustling market place is hardly suited for an advocate s office and that the alleged requirement pladed by the landlord is neither true nor bona fide and it is only a ruse for evicting the tenants with a view to let it out again for a higher rent after collecting a hefty amount by way of premium.

( 5 ) TO prove his case, the land-lord got examined himself as PW1 and marked Exs. P1 to P4. On behalf of the tenants, one of the partners of the third respondent-firm got examined himself as RW1 and also got marked Exs. R1 to R9. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced and after hearing the parties, the learned Rent Controller, by his order dated 2-9-1991 upheld the plea of bona fide requirement of the land-lord and ordered eviction granting three months time to the tenants for vacating the premises. The said order was confirmed on appeal by the lower appellate Court. Hence this revision.

( 6 ) SRI T. Ananta Babu, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, assailed the orders of the two Courts below by contending that the Courts below were awayed by the fact that the respondent/landlord is a practising advocate and ordered eviction even though the respondent miserably failed to prove that he bona fidely requires the suit premises for his own occupation. He submitted that the requirement pleaded is neither true nor bona fide. The land-lord has been able to carry on his profession in the rented premises in his occupation all these years without any inconvenience whatsoever. There is not an even an iota of evidence to show that there was any pressure from his landlady for vacating the premises which is now in his occupation. Admittedly no notice was issued by the land-lady to the respondent in that behalf. The said premises is situated in a very busy and central area of Secunderabad, namely, Rashtrapati Road whereas the suit premises is in a highly congested market place which is hardly suitable for having an advocate s office. There is not eve

Click Here to Read the rest of this document