This civil revision petition is filed under Section 22 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act 1960 (the Act, for brevity), against reversing order of appellate authority whereby and whereunder petitioner/tenant was ordered to be evicted.

2. Shree Datta Agencies is proprietary concern engaged in wholesale business in drugs and pharmaceuticals. Its proprietor Gopikishan Bhangdia took premises bearing No.4-4-233/1, Inderbagh, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad (hereafter called, petition schedule premises), from Smt.M.V.Vijaya Lakshmi, on a monthly rent of Rs.225/-. Premises was sold to Smt.Sakunthala Bai Chhajed, who is sister of Dinesh Kumar Kucheria. In turn Smt.Sakunthala Bai Chhajed sold premises to her brother, under registered sale deed dated 22.1.1987. After said purchase, Dinesh Kumar Kucheria (hereafter called, landlord) issued a legal notice to Gopikishan Bhangdia (hereafter called, tenant) seeking vacation on the ground of personal occupation for opening office of Chartered Accountant (CA). Tenant by reply dated 22.4.1988 rejected request of landlord. Whereafter landlord requested for payment of rent to him alone. Sometime thereafter, landlord constructed first and second floors on petition schedule premises. In 1993, eviction petition being R.C.No.771 of 1993 was filed seeking eviction of tenant on three grounds, namely, bona fide requirement for personal occupation, mala fide denial of title by tenant, and tenant secured alternative accommodation and failed to occupy tenanted premises for four months.

3. Learned Rent Controller framed three points for consideration, namely, (i) Whether tenant denied title of landlord; (ii) Whether tenant secured alternative accommodation and ceased to occupy premises from February 1993 onwards; and (iii) Whether landlord personally requires for bona fide commencement of office. On all these points findings were recorded in favour of tenant and eviction petition was rejected. On appeal by landlord, learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court (appellate authority) reversed findings of learned Rent Controller on all the three points and allowed eviction petition directing tenant to vacate premises within two months. This order is assailed in this revision petition. In this revision, three points which were considered by original authority as well as appellate authority can be treated as points for consideration.

Scope of appellate power

4. Before considering three points, one after the other, a submission raised by tenant with regard to appellate power conferred on Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, needs to be disposed of. Learned Senior Counsel vehemently contends that appellate power conferred under Section 20 of the Act is not akin to nor can be equated with appellate power conferred on a civil Court under Section 96 and Order XLI of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC). He would urge that power conferred on learned Rent Controller under Section 10(2)(iv) read with Section 10(2) of the Act cannot be exercised by appellate authority. According learned Senior Counsel, order passed by learned Rent Controller does not merge with order passed by appellate authority, and therefore, when original authority dismissed eviction petition, appellate authority in exercise of power under Section 20(3) of the Act cannot order eviction. He would further urge that the order of learned Rent Controller shall be final subject to decision of appellate authority and/or revisional authority but no such power is conferred on appellate authority to reverse order of learned Rent Controller. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on Marrapu Venkata Swamy v Nadipalli Ramamohan Rao1 and Kunhayammed v State of Kerala2. Opposing the submission, learned Counsel for respondent/landlord submits that no such plea was taken before authorities below and therefore tenant cannot be permitted to take such a plea before revisional authority. Secondly he submits that