P. L. NARASIMHA SHARMA, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONERS 2 to 4 in the Eviction petition R C No. 102 of 1979 on the file of principal Rent Controller, City Civil court, Secunderabad are the petitioners in this revision. They were impbaded as the legal representatives of the original landlord, g. Narasimhulu, who was the first petitioner in R C No. 102 of 1979. The original tenaat who was impleaded as first respondent in the above R C died and the second respondent was impleaded as the legal representative of the deceased original tenant, viz. . Pentaiah. The matter arises under Rent Control Act. R C No. 102 of 1979 on the file of Principal Rent Controller, city Civil Court, Secunderabad was filed by G. Narasimhulu, the original landlord, for eviction of the original tanant, pentaiah (since deceased) on the ground that he requires the petition schedule premises bonafide for the personal occupation of his family which consists of himself and his brother, and also on the ground that the tenant obtained alternative accommodation situate at Sankar Street, Secunderabad and living there. A further ground was raised that the building is in a dilapidated condition and requires extensive repairs and that the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Secunderabad Division issued demolition notice dated- 11.-9-1975. The application was filed mainly on the ground that the petition schedule premises bearing House No. 7-1-986 situate at shankar Street, Secunderabad belongs to him and that the original tenant, viz,, pentaiah (1st respondent in RC) was a tenant of the said premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 15/- which is exclusive of water and electricity charges The tenancy is a month to month tenancy commencing on the first day of each month and ending on the last date of the said month according to English calander, and the said premises was constructed prior to 1957. It was alleged that the original landlord (1st petitioner in R C ) was living in the house bearing No. 7-1-779 along with his brother who constitute together joint family. The family of the petitioners has grown up and they are in all about 12 members, and that the present premises is not sufficient for their accommodation, and that they are finding it very difficult to accommodate themselves and their family in the present premises etc. , The other two grounds, viz , alternative accommodation obtained by the original tenant ( 1st respondent in R C ) and that the premises requires immediate repairs and the issuance of demolition notice by the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, secunderabad Division are already referred to above.

( 2 ) THE application was resisted by the original tenant by filing a counter. Several objections were raised. However, the main objection seems to be that the provision quoted in the eviction petition refers to additional accommodation and, therefore, the application is not maintainable and that the requirement, as alleged in the eviction petition, is not bonafids. It was further stated that the original tenant did not obtain alternative accommodation of House No. 7-1-1075 as alleged in the eviction petition, that the allegation that the petition schedule premises requires extensive repairs and is liable for demolition, and the issuance of the notice by the hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Secunderabad division are all incorrect and false and that the landlord himself might be responsible for getting the notice issued in order to create a ground for eviction. It was further alleged that the landlord obtained the premises occupied by one llngamma, the tenant in H. No. 7-1-985 who vacated the same and, therefore, the application on the ground of bonafide requirement has no substance. While the petition was pending, the original landlord (1st petitioner in R C ) died and I A No. 36 of 1980 was filed by the petitioners herein ( petitioners 2 to 4 In R C ) for bringing them as the legal representatives of the deceased original landlord.

( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the said ap

Click Here to Read the rest of this document