This revision is directed against the order dated 05.06.2006 passed in R.A. No.180 of 2002 by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, whereby and where under the eviction order passed by the I Additional Rent Controller in R.C. No.343 of 1999, dated 26.04.2002 was set aside and dismissed the eviction petition in toto.

2. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Rent Controller for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the petitioner/landlord, in nutshell, is that he is the owner of the premises bearing No.3-2-844/5 situated at Kachiguda, Hyderabad. The respondent is the tenant of the said premises. The agreed monthly rent is Rs.950/- per month and the same is payable on or before 5th of every succeeding month. A written lease deed was executed on 27.12.1992. The petitioner’s grand son Dr. Ajay Kumar is the dentist and he passed BDS in January, 1997. He wanted to start a clinic in the premises let out to the respondent and the petitioner issued a letter dated 21-12-1998 requesting the respondent to vacate the premises. Again another notice was issued on 07.04.1999. After receiving the said notice, the respondent has issued a cheque for Rs.3,800/-towards four months rent with letter dated 28.05.1999 stating that the amount is towards the rent for the months from February to May, 1999. The petitioner/landlord adjusted the said amount towards the rent for the months of November, 1998 to February, 1999 and the rent is due from March 1999 onwards. Thus, the petitioner sought eviction of the respondent both on the grounds of willful default and bona fide requirement.

4. The respondent filed counter. His specific case is that he has deposited an amount of Rs.40,000/- with the petitioner towards security deposit at the time of inception of tenancy. He has sent a cheque for Rs.3,800/- towards rent for the months from February to May, 1999, and therefore he is not due for any period. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he is due for the rent from March, 1999 onwards after adjustment is not correct. The grand son of the petitioner was not qualified by the date of filing of eviction petition and there are no bona fides in the claim of the petitioner.

5. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner died and his legal heirs are brought on record. During the pendency of the eviction proceedings, the mulgi Nos.1, 3 and 6 fell vacant and the legal heirs of the original landlord have been in possession of the same. Mulgi No.3-2-844/1 is even now vacant and the size of said Mulgi is double than the petition schedule mulgi. The landlords have constructed multi storied complex consisting of ground floor and upper four floors and the construction was completed in the year 2004 itself. The said commercial complex was named as Rajeswari Gayathri Sadan. In ground floor landlords have let out one Mulgi to a tenant in the name and style of “Net World” and other Mulgi is vacant and requirement if any of the landlords stands extinguished.

6. The landlords have filed a rejoinder. The landlords have denied that they are in possession of the Mulgies as contended by the respondent. They have also denied that Mulgi No.3-2-844/1 is even now vacant is available for starting clinic by the grand son of the petitioner. Their specific case is that two mulgies on the ground floor in the newly constructed multi storied complex are not available for requirement of the grandson of the petitioner because while taking of development of the premises No.3-2-844, the premises No.3-2844/A belonging to neighbours i.e., Sri M.J.Jagadiswar and M.J.Parameswar was also included as a passage and the owners of the said premises were given accommodation in the new construction. There was a tenant in the premises owned by M.J. Jagadishwar in the name and style of ‘Net World’ and as the said tenant was given a mulgi in the new construction to settle dispute with the said tenant and adjacent Mu