S. DASARADHA RAMA REDDI, J.

( 1 ) PARTIES are described as arrayed in C. R. P. No. 2569 of 1993.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a tenant of one portion of residential premises bearing no. 4-7-427 situate at Esamia Bazar, Hyderabad, on -a monthly rental of rs. 60/ -. The respondent-land lady filed petition under Section 10 (2) (i), (ii) (b), (iii), (iv) (v) arid 10 (3) (i) (a) of the Act seeking eviction of the petitioner on the ground that she needs the same as she has large family consisting of her husband, her mother-in-law and four children aged 8, 5, 3 and 1/2 years. She says in the petition that her husband has purchased other two portions of the premises bearing Nos. 4-7-425 and 4-7-426 where two other tenants are staying, against whom eviction petitions have been filed by her husband and that she does not own or possess any other property in the City or elsewhere. It is also alleged that the petitioner has purchased a house bearing No. 2-3-54/b, khadribagh, Amberpet, Hyderabad, and in view of his securing alternative accommodation, he is liable to be evicted. Other grounds of waste, nuisance and default in payment of water and electricity charges are also alleged. The tenant has filed counter denying purchase of house No. 2-3-54/b at Amberpet and bona fide requirement of the premises by the land-lady. It has been stated that the petition has been filed only because he did not accept the demand of the land lady for enhanced rent. He also denied default in payment of electricity and water charges, acts, of waste and nuisance. The Rent Controller allowed the petition on the ground that the tenant has secured alternative accommodation and rejected the other grounds raised by the land-lady. R. A. No. 586 of 1989. filled by the tenant was dismissed and the tenant has preferred C. R. P. No. 2569 of 1993.

( 3 ) THE only contention raised by Sri M. P. Ugle, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner has not secured alternative accommodation and the Courts below are wrong in holding to the contrary.

( 4 ) SECTION 10 (2) of the Act reads as follows:"a landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satisfied -. . . . . (v)that the tenanr has secured alternative building or ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause, the Controller shall make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building and if the Controller is not so satisfied, he shall make an order rejecting the application. "in the cross-examination, the tenant (R. W. I) admitted that there is house in the name of his wife in Khadribagh, Amberpet, and that there are four tenants in that house, besides one tenant in the Mulge. The contention of Sri Ugle is that though the tenant has got house with bigger accommodation than the house in dispute which consists of one room of size 8 9" x 9 6" and a varandah, it cannot be said that the accommodation is alternative to the accommodation in question and relies on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sistla ramalakshmamma vs. Lakshmi General Stores. On the other hand, Sri s. Balachand, learned Counsel for the respondent, contends that the expression alternative is not synonymous with identical and that if interpreted otherwise, it leads to anamolus results and will not be in consonance with object and spirit of the Act which is meant to protect the interests of the tenants.

( 5 ) IN Ramalakshmamma s case, the tenant who was doing cloth, business in the rented premises constructed a building of his own with two floors and gradually shifted his cloth business from the rented, building to the new building. The contention of the landlord was that the suit building was no more necessary for the tenant as he secured more decent alternative accommodation. The tenant s p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document