S. PARVATHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is preferred under Section 22 of the Andhra pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 ( the Act for short) by the unsuccessful tenant against the order of the learned Principal subordinatejudge-cum-Rent Control Appellate Authority at Visakhapatnam, dated 25-6-1992 dismissing his appeal, R. CA. No. 15 of 1990, and confirming the order of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal District Munsif at Visakhapatnam, dated 7-6-1990 in R. C. C. No. 101 of 1986 allowing the eviction petition filed by the respondents herein.

( 2 ) THE first respondent herein and her husband Bangaraiah were the owners of the premises (hereinafter referred to as "the leased premises") leased to the petitioner herein for his business purposes at a rent of Rs. 400/- per month under a registered lease deed dated 30-12-1980 (marked as Ex. A-2 in the R. C. C. ). The period of lease was five years. Bangaraiah died on 16-5-1981 leaving behind the first respondent and their only son, the second-respondent, as his heirs. Thereafter, the petitioner attorned to the respondents herein and has been paying rents for the leased premises to them. It is the case of the respondents herein that the leased premises formed part of a building belonging to them and that the remaining portion of the building has been in their occupation and that they have been running hotel business in the remaining portion of the building. It is their case that for the purpose of expanding hotel business they required the leased premises and that they requested the petitioner herein to vacate and that ashe refused to vacate, they had to prefer the R. C. C. for eviction of the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein resisted the R. C. C. and disputed the need of the respondents contending that the remaining portion of the building in the possession of the respondents herein was sufficient for the purposes of their hotel business and that the eviction peri tion was not bona fide and that it was filed because he did not agree to increase the rent to Rs. 1,000/- per month as demanded by the respondents herein. The petitioner herein also contended that the leased premises was a separate building and did not form part of the building in which the respondents were running hotel business and that therefore Section 10 (3) (c) of the Act was not attracted to the facts of the case and that on the other hand, in view of Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) he could not be evicted from the leased premises which was a non-residential building because they were already naving a non-residential building in which they were doing the hotel business.

( 3 ) AS regards the contention of the tenant, i. e. , the petitioner herein, that the premises leased to him was a separate building and did not form part of a building in which the respondents were running hotel business, the Rent controller as well as the Appellate Tribunal found that the petitioner herein did not take such a plea in his counter in the Rentcontrol case. They also found that in the registered lease deed dated 30-12-1980 (Ex. A-2), the leased premises were described as portion of the building of the petitioner and that its southern boundary was shown as remaining portion of the building of the respondents herein. The tenant who examined himself as R. W. 1 also did not depose in his evidence that the leased premises was not a contiguous part of the remaining building or that it was a separate and distinct unit. After considering the evidence on record, the Rent Controller held as follows:"there is no evidence to prove that the petition schedule premises is a separate unit. In the absence of any evidence to prove that the petition schedule premises is a separate and distinct building and it is not a part and parcel of the composite building, I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that it is a portion of the building owned by the petitioners and they are running a meals hotel in the rema

Click Here to Read the rest of this document