This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 10.02.2009, passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad (Appellate Authority) in R.A.No.94 of 2008, whereby and whereunder, the Appellate Authority has set aside the orders of the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad, passed in R.C.No.137 of 2006, dated 27.03.2008.

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

3. The petitioner is a landlady. Her simple case is that she is the owner of the shop bearing No.1-2-74 to 76, admeasuring about 1400 square feet, situated at Parklane, Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as petition schedule shop). The respondent is her tenant and the agreed rent is Rs.900/- per month. The petitioner’s sons and husband are carrying on business under the name and style of “Ramesh Watch Company” from a tenanted shop bearing No.127 and 128 (old) corresponding to 1-6-55 (new), situated at Parklane, Secunderabad, and an eviction petition had been instituted against Ramesh Watch Company for its eviction from the said premises in R.C.No.140 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, at Secunderabad, and the said R.C. has been allowed on 31.03.2006 ordering the eviction of Ramesh Watch Company. As a result of eviction order passed against Ramesh Watch Company, the shop in the occupation of the respondent is urgently required by her for the purpose of her family biasness which is being carried on by her husband and sons and the requirement of petition schedule shop is, therefore, genuine and bona fide. She got issued a lawyer’s notice, dated 21.06.2006, to the respondent to vacate the premises and as the respondent gave a reply through his Advocate and raised untenable grounds, she filed R.C. No.137 of 2006.

4. The respondent filed a counter affidavit admitting that he is the tenant of the petition schedule shop, but he denied that the petition schedule shop is required by the petitioner bona fidely for her business. His case is that this petition has been filed only for the purpose of evicting him and that the landlady owns several movable and immovable commercial properties in twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and the addresses of properties given by the respondent in the counter are as follows:

1. Premises bearing No.130, Parklane, Secunderabad, which is adjacent to the alleged business premises of Ramesh Watch Company, which is owned by the landlady for the last 15 years.

2. Commercial property in Plot No.3, admeasuring 10000 square feet consisting of ground + three floors, situated at Begumpet, opposite to Shopper’s Stop, Secunderabad, and the said premises is vacant.

3. Commercial property consisting of ground + three floors admeasuring 600 square feet and this property is also vacant.

5. It is also the case of the respondent that there are other movable and immovable properties which are owned and possessed by the petitioner and her family members at P.G. Road, Secunderabad, and other places in Secunderabad which are more suitable for their business purpose. The landlady has suppressed all these facts. She is bound to disclose all these properties owned and possessed by her. The further case of the respondent is that the husband of the landlady approached the respondent and demanded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards Pagidi (according to Sri Balchand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, Pagidi means amount kept with the landlord as security), in the event of respondent wants to continue as a tenant in the said shop. It is also the case of the respondent that he has been carrying on his business since more than four decades and the entire family is serving out of the income derived from the business carried in the schedule premises and if he is evicted it will cause great hardship and loss to him.

6. On behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner herself was examined as P.W.1 and her so