This revision is preferred by the landlords against the order dated 8.12.2006 passed by the Appellate Authority under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short "the Act"-Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court), Hyderabad in R.A.No. 258 of 2004. The parties are being referred to as 'the landlords' and 'the tenant'.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows,

The landlords filed an eviction petition on the ground that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rents as well as property tax. The second ground alleged was that the second petitioner-landlord is carrying on professional business in a rented mulgi and requires the demised mulgi for his own purpose. The third ground of the tenant having an alternative accommodation was also alleged. The learned Rent Controller, on trial, accepted all the grounds and ordered eviction of the tenant. Aggrieved thereby, the landlords filed an appeal before the lower Appellate Authority. Under the impugned order the lower Appellate Authority rejected the grounds of wilful default in payment of rents as well as property tax and also the ground of the tenant having an alternative accommodation. The said grounds are not seriously pressed in this revision. However the ground of personal requirement which was also rejected by the lower Appellate Authority is seriously contested and it requires consideration.

3. It is the case of the landlords that the demised mulgi is required by the second petitioner-landlord for carrying on business as he is presently carrying on such business in a rented premises. The plea of personal requirement which was taken in para-5 of the eviction petition was disputed by the tenant on the ground that the second petitioner-landlord is not under the threat of eviction from the rented premises and secondly on the ground that the landlord owns an adjacent mulgi situated on the eastern side of the mulgi in question. It was also further alleged by the tenant that the said mulgi was previously used by the landlords for running a kirana and general stores which was later closed and recently it has been let out for a ready made garments business on a higher rent and as such the requirement was strongly disputed. The second petitioner-landlord examined himself as P.W.1 and his brother as P.W.2 and marked Exs.A1 to A4 which are rental deed dated 3.3.1987, transfer certificate issued by Government Boys Upper Primary School, certificate issued by civil surgeon orthopedic and photographs. The tenant examined himself as R.W.1 and marked Exs.R1 to R6 which are in the nature of receipts and acknowledgements.

4. As mentioned above, since the ground of personal requirement is only seriously pressed for adjudication, the documentary evidence produced by the parties has hardly any relevance. The learned counsel for the landlords has made submissions to substantiate the plea of personal requirement primarily on the ground that there is no evidence to show that the second petitioner-landlord is entitled to any alternative premises other than the petition schedule premises. He has also urged that so far as the personal requirement is concerned, the second petitioner-landlord is carrying on business in a rented premises and he requires the demised premises for carrying on such business and that he is not owning any other non-residential premises and as such the said requirement ought to have been upheld by the lower Appellate Authority. He also relies upon the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and cross-examination of R.W.1 in support of these contentions, reference to which will be made later on.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the tenant contends that the findings of the lower Appellate Authority even on the ground of personal requirement do not deserve to be interfered with. The learned counsel submits that the plea of partition between PWs 1 and 2 is not substantiated. He also claims that there is no pleading in the eviction petition th