1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction ) Control Act, 1960, ( for short “the Act”) by the landlords challenging the order dt. 5.6.2006 in RA No.504 of 1994 of the Appellate Authority under the Act-cum-Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad confirming the order dated 25.4.1994 in RC No.1175 of 1988 of the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad.

2. The subject matter of this Civil Revision Petition is a mulgi bearing premises No.5-8-658/5 situated at Station Road, Nampally, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “RC schedule premises”. The first petitioner is a firm in which petitioner no.2 and respondents 2 to 9 are partners. (for short “petitioners”)

3. The RC schedule premises was purchased by the 1st petitioner firm under regd. sale deeds dt. 9.5.1985 and 10.5.1985. The first petitioner firm was carrying on hotel business under the name and style of Coromondel Lodge in the premises bearing Municipal Nos.5-8-658, 658/1-4 and sheds bearing Nos. 658/5,658/6 and 658/7 and three floors with back side restaurant Shalimar Bar and Restaurant. The first, second and third floors are resting on the ground floor shops bearing Nos. 5-8-657, 658, 658/1 to 8 situated at Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. On the western side of the main road, there is a passage with shutter gate. In the first, second and third floors there are total 33 rooms with balcony, W.C. bath and other amenities fully equipped with furniture.

4. The 1st respondent is a tenant of the petitioners in the RC schedule premises and he had attorned his tenancy with effect from 12.5.1985. The 1st respondent was paying monthly rent of Rs.350/- excluding electricity consumption charges and carried on business in the name and style of “M/s Sona Foot Wear”.

5. After purchase of the RC schedule premises , the 1st petitioner firm informed the 1st respondent that it requires it and adjacent mulgies for their own use as it is facing inconvenience in its business for want of accommodation for business; that it is temporarily using the stair case room for Reception and facing problems to accommodate the Manager, Telephone cabin, Receptionist, Accounts Section etc., and waiting lounge for customers; that customers are suffering inconvenience for lack of sitting accommodation; it could not accommodate a manager with a cabin to attend to customers; and this is affecting the business of the petitioners; they could not install a lift providing easier access to the 3 floors above. As the 1st respondent did not vacate, RC. No.1175 of 1988 was filed in the Court of the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad under Section 10(3) (c) of the Act to evict the 1st respondent contending that petitioners require additional accommodation which requirement is bonafide; that hardship to the petitioners outweighs the requirements of the 1st respondent; apart from the RC schedule premises the 1st petitioner also requires other two shops which are abutting it i.e premises bearing municipal no.5-8-658/6 and 7; that it had initiated eviction proceedings against the tenants of the said premises also; that petitioners has to take up construction of fourth floor to create more lodging accommodation; and they require the RC schedule premises for additional accommodation for reception, Manager Room etc., which need is bonafide and therefore the 1st respondent is liable to be evicted.

6. The 1st respondent filed a counter admitting the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the 1st petitioner and himself and also quantum of rent. But he pleaded that the petitioners have no right to seek eviction under Section 10(3)(c ) of the Act; that the first petitioner in its capacity as firm is not competent to file petition for eviction on account of non-compliance of mandatory provisions embodied under Section 69 of the Partnership Act; there are also other buildings on the site including the building occupied by M/s. Shalimar