Under Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Rent Control Act, a landlord in occupation of a non-residential building is not entitled to get back possession of another non-residential building in the occupation of a tenant for carrying on his business. The suitability, convenience, and sufficiency of the non-residential building already in the occupation of the landlord are not relevant.

V. BHASKARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THESE three revision petitions arise out of a common judgment and decree in R. A. Nos. 303,304 and 305 of 1992 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, city Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, dated 31-8-1994. The land lady filed three eviction petitions against three different tenants in respect of three non- residential premises, namely, R. C. Nos. 1342 of 1986,1343 of 1986 and 1344 of 1986 (dated 26-6-1992), on various grounds, including (1) wilful default in payment of rent for a certain period and (2) bona fide requirement of the premises for personal occupation before IV Additional Rent Controller, hyderabad. Both the grounds are held to have been established by the land lady and, accordingly, the eviction petitions have been allowed in all three cases. The tenants filed R. A. Nos. 303,304 and 305 of 1992 respectively, against the said orders. The learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, hyderabad reversed the above findings on both the grounds and allowed the appeals. Consequently, the eviction petitions stood dismissed. Thereupon, the land lady filed these three revision petitions.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts giving rise to these revision petitions in brief are as under- late Thularam, the original landlord was the husband of the revision petitioner herein. He died on 15-2-1984. The demised mulgies were let out to the respondents herein on monthly rent, sometime in the year 1974. During his life time, late Thularam filed O. S. Nos. 1003 of 1981,1004 of 1981 and 1006 of 1981 on the file of III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking eviction of the respondents-tenants from the respective mulgies by terminating their tenancy and sought for compensation for use and occupation of the mulgies from 1981 till the date of eviction. During the pendency of these suits, the supreme Court of India struck down Section 32 (b) of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short the Rent Control Act ) and consequently, the Civil Court has lost its jurisdiction to try the above suits. Soon after the death of late Thularam, the revision petitioner filed the aforesaid eviction petitions on 25-6-1984. Each one of the respondents filed separate counter, denying all the averments of the revision petitioner. They also specifically pleaded that prior to the filing of the suits and during the pendency of the suits, they offered to pay the rents to the landlord late Thularam or his sons, who were looking after his affairs, and they also requested them many a time to accept the rents tendered by them, but he refused to receive the rents and at one stage the landlord asked the tenants to send the rents to his Advocate, Sri laxminarayana Somani. It is also their case that they sent the rents through cheques to Sri Laxminarayana Somani, but he returned them with a covering letter stating that his client Thularam refused to accept the rents on the ground that the relationship of landlord and tenant no longer existed between them and that the respondents are the trespassers in the suit premises. It is also their case, that they requested one of the sons of late Thularam to accept the rents but he too refused the same and, thereafter, they once again sent the rents through bank drafts to Sri Laxminarayana Somani, Advocate, requesting him to acknowledge the receipt of the rents and pass on the same to the legal heirs of late Thularam but the registered cover was returned. Thus, they contended that they are not wilful defaulters. As regards the other ground, namely, bona fide requirement for personal occupation, the respondents specifically pleaded that the revision petitioner is already in occupation and possession of two non- residential rooms adjacent to the suit mulgies and hence she is precluded from seeking eviction of the respondents. Both sides adduced oral and documentary evidence. One Amarlal, General Power of Attorney of the petitioner is examined as P. W. 1 and one

Click Here to Read the rest of this document