Since the parties are same and the issues involved are also same in both these revisions, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. C.R.P.No.6820 of 2005 is directed against the order dated 20.10.2005 passed in R.A.No.332 of 2001 by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, (‘the lower appellate authority’, for brevity) whereby and whereunder, the order dated 23.07.2001 passed in R.C.No.176 of 1999 by the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad, (‘the Rent Controller’ for brevity) has been confirmed and C.R.P.No.6821 of 2005 is directed against the order dated 20.10.2005 passed in R.A.No.329 of 2001 by the lower appellate authority, whereby and whereunder, the order dated 23.07.2001 passed in R.C.No.216 of 1999 by the Rent Controller has been confirmed.

3. The petitioner in both these revisions is the tenant and the respondent in both these revisions is the landlord of the premises bearing municipal No.7-2-861, situated at Market Street, Hyderabad comprising of the ground and the first floor (schedule premises). For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Rent Controller in R.C.No.176 of 1999.

4. The petitioner/landlord filed a petition under Section 10(3)(iii)(a), 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(v) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (‘the Act’, for brevity) seeking eviction of the respondent/tenant from the schedule premises.

5. As seen from the record, the necessary facts of the case are as follows:-

The father of the respondent obtained the schedule premises on lease in the year 1946 and started business in the name and style of “N.G.Dresses”. Initially, the monthly rent was Rs.175/-, but subsequently, the rent was enhanced from time to time. Respondent is the adopted son of the original tenant. Respondent had sent rent through money orders and banker cheques on various dates but the petitioner refused to receive the same on the ground that the rents were not sent in the name of the original tenant but were sent in the name of the respondent. Father of the respondent, i.e., the original tenant dies on 01.06.1998. After the death of his father, the respondent continued to sent money orders but the petitioner had refused to receive the same. The respondent initially got issued a legal notice on 22.01.1997 requesting the petitioner to furnish his bank account particulars to enable him to deposit the rents in the bank account of the petitioner, but the petitioner did not furnish such particulars.

6. The further case of the petitioner is that he has got two sons, namely Yogesh Kumar Yadav and Darmesh Kumar Yadav and that the petitioner and his sons have no other non-residential premises of their own except the schedule premises. It is also his case that his elder son – Yogesh Kumar Yadav is doing business in the name and style of Shanti Agencies in the premises No.3-3-69 situated behind erstwhile Prabhat Talkies, Kachiduga, Hyderabad from 1994 onwards in a rented premises on a monthly rent of Rs.6,000/- belonging to Mr.Pratap kumar and Smt.Sangeeta Shah and that the landlord of the said premises is pressing him to vacate the said premises. His further case that his eldest son is not making good profits and the rent is quite excessive. Thus, the petitioner’s case is that he bonafidely require the schedule premises for shifting the business of his son from the rented premises to the schedule premises who wants to start his own business along with his younger brother and that the schedule premises is quite sufficient and suitable for the said business. It is also his case that the respondent has recently secured alternative accommodation, i.e., Mulgi No.1-135 situated at Malkajgiri besides Anutex, Secunderabad and he is running a cloth matching centre under the name and style of ‘Arihant Textiles’ and since the respondent had secured alternative accommodation, he is liable to be evicted.

7. The respondent