Respondents filed RC No.207 of 1991, against the petitioners, before the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad, seeking eviction. As many as five grounds under the relevant clauses of Section 10 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (for short "the Act"), were pleaded. It was alleged that the petitioners:

(a) have sub-let the premises to the third parties;

(b) committed acts of waste, impairing the utility of the building;

(c) secured alternative accommodation for their business;

(d) committed wilful default in payment of the rent from July 1992 to March 1994; and that

(e) the premises are needed for respondent No.1 to start business;

The case was opposed by the petitioners; by filing counter. Through its order dated 30.7.2004, the learned Rent Controller, directed eviction of the petitioners, on the ground that the premises are needed for bona fide requirement of the respondents and that the petitioners committed wilful default, in payment of rent. Other grounds pleaded by the respondents were rejected.

2. While the petitioners filed R.A. No.208 of 2004, before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, directing eviction, the respondents filed R.A. No.240 of 2004, feeling aggrieved by the rejection of the other grounds for eviction. Through a common judgment dated 9.7.2007, the learned Chief Judge sustained the eviction of the petitioners, on the ground that there is bona fide requirement of the premises for respondent No.1, to start his r business. The finding on the allegation as to the wilful default was set aside. A finding was recorded in R.A. No.240 of 2004, to the effect that the petitioners e have secured alternative accommodation. This CRP is filed against the order in R.A. No.208 of 2004. The record does not o disclose that any revision was filed against the order in R.A. No.240 of 2004.

3. Sri S. Balchand, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, either concurrently or independently, are unsustainable in law and on facts. He submits that possession of the premises was secured, about three decades ago by the respondents, by pleading bona fide personal requirement, and thereafter, they leased the premises to the petitioners. He submits that the alternative premises, mentioned by the respondents, are owned and held by the wife of the 1st petitioner, and therefore, it cannot constitute a basis for eviction. Learned Counsel further submits that under the lease deed, petitioners are entitled to remain in possession upto the year 2013, and the very institution of the eviction petition was unsustainable in law.

4. Sri T. Mohan Rao, learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the Courts below have based their findings on the voluminous evidence that was adduced by the petitioners and respondents, and that the petitioners have been harassing respondents, for the past several decades. He pleads that the bona fide requirement of the 1st respondent was established beyond any pale of doubt. He submits that the record clearly discloses that the petitioners secured alternative premises, immediately adjoining the schedule premises, and apart from that, they are doing lucrative business in other parts of the city. Learned Counsel submits that on account of the failure of the petitioners to file a revision against the order in R.A. No.240 of 2004, this CRP is hit by the principle of res judicata.

5. As observed earlier, the respondents urged as many as five grounds, while seeking eviction of the petitioners. On their part, PWs.1 and 2 were examined as witnesses and Exs. P.1 to P.42 were marked. The 1st petitioner deposed as RW.1 and Exs. R.1 to R.221 are marked. Out of them, Exs. R.14 to R.221 are money order receipts and the return of money order coupons. The Rent Controller found that there is a bona fide requirement of the premises for the 1st respondent, and that the petitioners co