K. S. SHRIVASTAV, J.

( 1 ) THIS is tenant s revision from the common judgment dated 16-2-1996 in r. A. No. 357/91 and R. A. No. 358/91 by which the common order dated 24-7-1991 on the file of the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, in R. C. No. 656/86 (old R. C. No. 302/84) and R. C. No. 268/87 was reversed and the petitioner-firm and its partners have been directed to vacate the suit accommodation.

( 2 ) THIS judgment shall also govern the disposal of C. R. P. 910/96 for the sake of brevity and convenience.

( 3 ) IT is no longer in dispute before me that the petitioner-firm was initially inducted as a tenant by the predecessor-in-title of the respondents, namely late Gopinath Bhargava on 23-8-1978 for a period of eleven months at the rate of Rs. 300-00 Ps. per month besides water charges and later the monthly rent of the building bearing No. 4-1-991 to 4-1-993/1, Abid Road, Hyderabad, popularly known as bhargava Buildings (in short suit accommodation ) for non-residential purposes. After the expiry of the lease period, the petitioner-firm continued as monthly tenant. The 1st respondent and his deceased mother, that is respondent No. 2, filed R. C. No. 656/86 (old R. C. No. 302/84) on 20-7-1984 for the ejectment of the petitioner-firm from the suit accommodation on the ground that it has failed to pay the monthly rent for june, 1979 and July, 1979 at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month and the rent for april, 1984 to July, 1984 at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month, that without the written consent of the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent, Shanti Bhargava, since dead, had materially altered the dilapidated suit accommodation, which act has impaired its value and utility, that it has changed the initial business of manufacturing optic lenses and that they require the suit accommodation for the personal occupation of the 1st respondent who is living in a rented accommodation in Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, on a monthly rent of rs. 700/ -.

( 4 ) DURING the pendency of the above case, the 1st respondent and the deceased 2nd respondent instituted R. C. No. 268/87 on the ground that the petitioner-firm did not pay the monthly rent for February, 1986 and from May, 1986 to February, 1987, that the petitioner-firm has materially altered the suit accommodation and that it has changed the initial business of manufacturing optic lenses.

( 5 ) IN both the ejectment proceedings, the respondents alleged that the petitioner-firm has committed wilful default in payment of rents and, therefore, it is liable to be ejected from the suit accommodation on the aforementioned grounds.

( 6 ) IT is a matter of record that during the pendency of the ejectment proceedings, Shanti Bhargava, the land lady, expired and the remaining respondents were brought on record as her legal representatives.

( 7 ) THE petitioner-firm took similar defence in both the ejectment proceedings, that is to say, R. C. No. 656/86 (old RC 302/84) and R. C. No. 268/87. It denied that it had not paid the monthly rents regularly. It has pleaded that the monthly rents of June and July, 1979 were paid to the landlord, late Gopinath Bhargava and the rent for the other months was paid to the deceased-respondent No. 2 Shanti Bhargava who did not issue receipts. It has also pleaded that the alteration in the suit accommodation was done with the permission of the respondents. It denied that the need of the 1st respondent is genuine. It pleaded that the suit accommodation was taken for non-residential use that is for business of the petitioner-firm and it is genuinely doing business. It alleged that the respondents wanted to enhance the rent from Rs. 400/- to Rs. 600/- to which the petitioner-firm did not agree and, therefore, on false and invented grounds, the respondents have instituted both these proceedings.

( 8 ) ON assessment of the evidence on record, the lower Court answered all the issues against the respondents and dismissed both the eviction petitions, that is R. C. 656/86 (ol

Click Here to Read the rest of this document