This revision petition has been filed by the land ladies questioning the orders dated 05.06.2008 passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, in R.A. No.163 of 2005, confirming the orders passed by the III Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad, in R.C. No. 401 of 2001, dated 11.07.2005.

It is not in dispute that Smt. Sukhibai Sarada was the original owner of the petition schedule property. The petitioners herein are the daughters-in-law of the said Sukhibai Sarada. The sole respondent herein is the tenant. The said Sukhibai Sarada died on 21.07.2001. Thereafter, the petitioners herein filed the petition under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a) (iii)(b) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of willful default and also for bona fide requirement of the petition schedule premises.

The case of the petitioners/land ladies is that they have acquired the petition schedule property under a registered Will dated 17.04.2000 executed by Smt. Sukhibai Sarada. There are three floors in the petition schedule building, which is on the main road in Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad, and the ground floor is occupied by the tenant. The tenant has been doing business in Hosiery and Garments under the name and style “Poornima Dresses” since 1975. Originally, the rent was fixed at Rs.350/- per month and the same was enhanced from time to time and the present rent is at Rs.800/- per month i.e., as on the date of death of the original land lady. The further case of the land ladies is that though the tenant has knowledge about the death of Sukhibai Sarada and he attended the funeral procession and ceremony he had sent rents through money order in the name of dead person Smt. Sukhibai Sarada and when the money order was returned with an endorsement that Smt. Sukhibai Sarada died, he did not pay rents and committed default of payment of three months rent i.e., from July 2001 to September 2001. It is also the case of the petitioners/land ladies that the second petitioner has a son by name Vishnu and he needs the premises to start a business of his own and that he is having experience and knowledge in garments business. It is also their case that they do not own any other immovable property to start business for the son of the second petitioner.

The specific case of the tenant is that the eviction petition filed on 08.10.2001 is not maintainable, since it was filed within three months from the date of death of Smt. Sukhibai Sarada since the petitioners became owners of the said premises only on 21.07.2001 when Smt. Sukhibai Sarada died and that the petitioners ought to have filed the eviction petition after expiry of three months period from the date of death of Sukhibai Sarada. It is also contended that the original Will has not been filed before the Court and that he was not issued any notice terminating the tenancy and that he was not informed about the death of Smt. Sukhibai Sarada. The further case of the tenant is that he came to know about the death of Smt. Sukhibai Sarada only when he received the return money order form with an endorsement about the death of Sukhibai Sarada. It is also his case that he never attended the funeral procession of Sukhibai Sarada. It is the case of the tenant that he remitted the rent for the month of July 2001 by money order and that the same was returned with postal endorsement “payee expired”. Then he remitted the monthly rent in the name of Mangilal Sarad, who is the eldest son of Sukhibai Sarada, since he was under the impression that he being the eldest son was authorized to collect the rents and when that money order was also returned to him with an endorsement that payee was not found for seven days, again he remitted the rents for July and August 2001 by money order and the same was also refused and then he got issued a notice dated 28.09.2001 to Mangilal Sarad requesting him to specify the bank