V. BHASKARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE landlord filed the Civil Revision Petition assailing the judgment of the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in r. A. No. 29 of 1988, dated 24-4-1990, wherein the Order of eviction in R. C. No. 184 of 1981 on the file of Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad, dated 16-11-1987 has been reversed and consequently his eviction petition has been dismissed.

( 2 ) THE facts in brief are:that the building known as Asthana buildings bearing Door Nos. 5-8-268 to 271 originally belonged to one Smt. Shaher Banu. She sold the same under a registered sale deed on 7-1-1969 to M/s. Haji Suleman Khan and Mahaboob khan, Tobacco Exporters of Guntur, a registered firm of which one Athaur rahman Khan was a partner. The firm was dissolved on 1-1-1980 and the above property fell to the share of Athaur Rahman Khan. He entered into partnership with M. D. K. Hotels Private Limited, Hyderabad under a partnership deed dated 26-8-1980, according to which he contributed the said Asthana buildings towards his capital investment. The revision petitioner herein is thus claiming ownership of the above building. The above landlord decided to construct a Star Hotel in the premises of Asthana buildings and necessary permissions and licences were obtained from the authorities concerned. The respondent has been in occupation of the premises bearing No. 5-8-270 and 271 as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 220/- under Shaher Banu. She attorned the tenancy to the vendee M/s. Haji Suleman Khan and Mahaboob Khan with effect from 7-1-1969 and consequent upon the dissolution of the firm and its allotment to Athaur Rahman, the tenant was attorned to him with effect from 1-1-1980. The landlord averred in the eviction petition that it requires the above premises for the immediate purpose of demolishing the same to construct a Two Star hotel, that the tenant promised to vacate the premises but, he failed to do so and hence the eviction petition is filed.

( 3 ) THE tenant resisted the petition on several grounds. One ground is that the premises is used by a firm M/s. Gurumukh Das Brothers, but the petition is filed against the individual by name Gurumukh Das and hence it is not maintainable.

( 4 ) NEXT ground is that no title deeds are filed to show that the title andinterest vested in revision petitioner. Denying that the petitioner requires the suit building for a bona fide purpose of setting up a Two Star Hotel, the tenant contended that the landlord has been in occupation of vast open area of asthana building bearing No. 5-8-268, that he has demolished that building in order to construct a Two Star Hotel and it is sufficient for his purpose. It is further asserted that the demised building is an independent building and that Asthana building bearing No. 5-8-268 was a separate palatial building and so the provisions of Section 10 (3) (iii) (b) and 12 (1) (b) of the Act have no application. It is finally averred that the tenant has been carrying on business in the suit premises for the last three decades with sufficient goodwill and popularity to attract the customers and it is his only source of income and there are no valid grounds to evict him.

( 5 ) DURING the enquiry, the landlord examined three witnesses on his behalf. Athaur Rahman who stepped into the shoes of the original owner Shaher Banu and who contributed entire Asthana buildings as his capital investment examined himself as P. W. 1. The Executive Director of the petitioner firm who is acquainted with day to day functioning is examined as P. W. 2 and one balaram is examined as P. W. 3. The tenant examined himself as R. W. I and a third party by name Guharmal as R. W. 2. Exs. P-1 to P-18 are marked for the landlord.

( 6 ) THE learned Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad, scrutinised the aboveevidence and held that the landlord has established the requirement of the premises as bona fide and accordingly he allowed the eviction petition. Aggrieved by that o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document