L.N. Reddy, J.

1. This revision under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, ‘the Act’) is filed against the order dated 12-06-2012 passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.A. No. 213 of 2010.

2. The Petitioner is a firm, and tenant in respect of premises bearing No. 2-2-170 and 171, Subhash Road, Secunderabad. The respondent filed R.C. No. 193 of 2006 before the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad against the petitioner for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement. It was pleaded that her sons and grandsons are carrying out business in rented premises and that they intend to set up cloth business, in the premises under the occupation of the petitioner. She pleaded that another mulgi bearing No. 2-2-172 owned by her is under the occupation of a tenant by name M/s. Babumian and brothers and that she has no other non-residential premises for the establishment of business of her sons and grand children. She has also invoked the ground under Section 10-C of the Act which enables a widow to seek eviction of the tenant from the premises owned by her.

3. The petitioner filed a counter feigning ignorance about the respondent. The existence of any jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and themselves, was denied. According to them, the premises were obtained from one Sri Bahadarmal Ramchander in 1980 at the rent of Rs. 250/- per month and not from the respondent and at no point of time, the respondent informed them about her acquiring rights over the property. It was further pleaded that the original landlord did not inform them of any transfer of ownership, much less attornment of tenancy at any point of time. The plea as to the bonafide requirement was denied. It was asserted that the respondent, her children and grand children have many other premises.

4. The trial Court dismissed the R.C. through order dated 31-05-2010. Aggrieved by that, the respondent filed R.A. No. 213 of 2010 before the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The appeal was allowed through order dated 12-06-2010. Hence this revision.

5. Sri Pramod Kumar Kedia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only ground pleaded by the respondent for eviction from the premises was, one of bonafide requirement and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court held that such requirement does not exist at all. He further submits that except that the petitioner claimed ignorance about the manner in which the respondent derived title to the property, it did not dispute the title of the respondent as such and still, the lower appellate Court answered that point against the petitioner and allowed the R.A. He contends that the plea of bonafide requirement was not at all established.

6. Sri Shyam S. Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that in the counter filed in the R.C. itself, the petitioner flatly denied the title of the respondent vis-a-vis schedule property so much so, that a point had to be framed on it. He submits that the plea of bonafide requirement was clearly established and still, the Rent Controller did not order eviction and that the lower appellate Court granted the relief in accordance with law. Learned counsel further submits that the plea referable to Section 10-C of the Act was undeniable and there is no way, that the petitioner can oppose the eviction.

7. The respondent filed the R.C. for eviction of the petitioner by pleading the ground of bonafide requirement as well as the one under Section 10-C of the Act, in her capacity as a widow. In its counter, the petitioner opposed all the contentions raised by the respondent. Taking the pleadings before him into account, the learned Rent Controller framed the following points for consideration:

"1. Whether the denial of title of the petitioner by the respondent is bonafide?

2. Whether there i