P. RAMACHANDRA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) DIFFERENT tenants are the petitioners in all the five revision petitions while the respondent-bank is their landlord. The respondent is the owner of the premises bearing m. Nos. 3-3-795, 796,797,798,788,789 and 770 situated at General Bazar, Secunderabad. The respondent is having its banking business in the I floor of the premises while petitioner- tenants are carrying on business in the mulgies and godowns as tenants in the ground floor. As the respondent-bank bona fide requires the ground floor also, for extension of business, it filed R. Cs. 375 to 379 of 1983 for eviction of the petitioner - tenants. As the learned Rent controller dismissed those applications, the respondent-bank filed the appeals in r. A. Nos. 288 to 292 of 1989 which were allowed. Hence these revisions by the tenants. Although the Rent Controller disposed of the rent control cases by separate orders the appeals were disposed of by the Chief Judge, small Causes Court by a common order since the building from which eviction is sought is one and the same and as common questions arise for consideration in all appeals. Hence it would be convenient to dispose of these revision petitions by a common order.

( 2 ) THE case of the respondent-bank is that it is the owner of a double storeyed building bearing the aforesaid municipal numbers; the said building was constructed prior to 1957 and therefore, the provisions of the A. P. Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short the Act ) apply to the premises; the petitioners are tenants of specific and separate mulgies and godowns in the ground floor of the premises; the respondent is carrying on banking business under the name and style of Vysya Bank Limited in the I floor; as both were insufficient for its business and inconvenient for its customers, the respondent- bank proposes to have banking business in the ground floor also in order to cater to the banking needs of its customers; it would also facilitate easy access to the sick, old aged and disabled customers, who find it difficult to climb the stairs; the bank also proposes to have several safe deposit lockers and deposit counters in the ground floor; lift in the building is not working properly and therefore, the respondent bank by written notices requested the petitioner tenants to vacate and deliver vacant possessiofi of the suit premises in their respective possession for the use and occupation of the bank. As the tenants did not co-operate, the bank was constrained to file eviction petitions.

( 3 ) PETITIONERS besides denying those allegations stated that petitions for eviction were filed as petitioners could not meet the demand of enhancement of rent made by the respondent bank and therefore, petitions are filed with a mala fide intention to harass the tenants.

( 4 ) THE respondent-bank examined the branch manager, Vysya Bank, General Bazar branch, Secunderabad, in addition to marking notices that passed between the parties and the postal acknowledgments, while the petitioners tenants examined some of the tenants including partner of one of the firms in support of their respective contentions. No documents were marked on their side. The learned Rent controller dismissed the petitions holding that the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide since none of the customers was examined to establish the grievances or hardship experienced by them in climbing the steps, the lift was neglected without repairs, II floor of the building is vacant and is available for the bank for extension of its business and therefore, the requirement of the bank is anything but bona fide. In view of these circumstances, the comparative hardship is more to the tenants than the landlord. On appeal the learned Chief judge, City Small Causes Court reversed the said finding and found that the requirement of the respondent-bank is bona fide. He found that there is no truth in the assertion of the tenants that these petitions are fi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document