This revision is preferred by the tenant against the order of eviction passed by the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, in R.A. No. 4 of 2001, dated 15-2-2005, setting aside the dismissal order of the learned III Additional Rent Controller passed in R.C. No. 528 of 1996, dated 11-10-2000.

2. The tenant is the petitioner and the respondent is the landlady. The parties are herein after referred to as landlady and tenant, respectively, for the sake of convenience.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The respondent herein is the owner and landlady of the schedule premises, which was gifted to her by her mother under a registered gift deed, EX.P-1, dated 27 -12-1988. The tenant is in possession of the premises under a rental deed, Ex.P-3, in Urdu with its true translation being EX.P-4, dated 16-01-1962. The case of the landlady in brief is that her husband who is a qualified civil engineer, has since retired and wishes to provide consultancy services in civil works, to maintain the family, and as such, the premises is bona fide required by her. She claims that she does not have any other premises. It is also claimed that the schedule mulgi is an old construction and is in dilapidated condition and as such it is necessary to demolish it and reconstruct a new building and for that the petitioner is prepared to comply with the terms of the requirement of law, if such requirement is upheld by the Court. It is also further alleged that the scheduled mulgi was given to the tenant for doing tailoring business only and without consent of the landlady, the tenant is using the mulgi for the business of 'Ice Creams and Cool Drinks'. Because of the use of refrigerator, the water flowing from melting by absorbing into the foundation and is causing damage of the walls of the building affecting the value and utility of the mulgi.

4. The tenant resisted the revision petition, inter alia, on the ground that the tenant has obtained mulgi about 40 years back from the mother of the landlady, and he has been doing the business in ice creams and cool drinks for several years, without any objection from the landlady. So far as personal requirement is concerned, it was alleged that the husband of the landlady is running function halls and hotels at Kamareddy and he primarily resides at Kamareddy getting very substantial rental income and there is neither need nor requirement as alleged. The tenant also denied that the mulgi is in dilapidated condition and since he is not using the refrigerator by keeping it nearer to the walls so that there is no damage to the property imparting the value and utility.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Rent Controller examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 on behalf of the landlady and marked Exs.P-1 to P-5. Similarly on behalf of the tenants, R.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R-1 to R-17 were marked. In addition to that EX.X-1 and X-2 were marked through P.W.2.

6. On the question of change of user, the learned Rent Controller found that in terms of the rental agreement, Exs.P-3 and P-4 (translation of Ex.P-3), and in view of Clause-I in the rental agreement, the contention of the tenant that he can carry on any of the business of his choice is not tenable. However, the fact that the tenant is carrying on said existing business for the last 30 years and the landlady never objected thereto weighed with the learned Rent Controller. It was, therefore, found' by the Rent Controller that since the eviction petition is filed in the year 1996 and since it is not stated in the petition as to when the tenant started using the premises for different business, the Rent Controller felt that the landlady, having knowledge of change of user, has not objected to the same for several years without taking any steps for eviction, cannot seek eviction on the said ground. To the extent of the aspect of causing damage and affecting value and utility of the building, the Rent Controller felt that