Point of Law :
It is settled law that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act, concurrent findings of fact recorded by the primary authority and the appellate authority cannot be interfered with merely on the ground that a different view is possible, and except on the ground of perversity or non-consideration of the material evidence, concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with.

ORDER :

1. Civil Revision Petition No.74 of 2020 is filed by the petitioners challenging the order dt.26.09.2019 passed in R.C.A.No.95 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad [Appellate Authority under Section 20 of the Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, ‘the Act’)] confirming the order passed by the II Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad on 17.09.2018 in R.C.No.240 of 2014 in respect of premises bearing No.1-1-258/19/1 situate at Chikkadpally, Hyderabad.

2. Civil Revision Petition No.636 of 2020 is filed by the same petitioner against the same respondents challenging the order dt.26.09.2019 passed in R.C.A.No.94 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad confirming the order dt.17.09.2018 passed in R.C.No.239 of 2014 on the file of II Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in respect of premises bearing Municipal No.1-1-258/19, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad.

3. The petitioners are tenants of the respondents in respect of these two properties which had been purchased by the respondents under a registered sale deeds dt.11.07.1967 and 18.03.1975 respectively.

4. The said premises had been let-out by the respondents to the petitioners on 07.09.1989 for doing electrical business in the name and style ‘Emjay Electricals’ by pooling the mulgies together. As on the commencement of the lease, the monthly rent was Rs.600/-. But, at the time of the filing of the R.C., the monthly rent for each mulgi was Rs.2,431/- and for both mulgies it was Rs.4,862/-.

5. The respondent nos.1 and 3 and the husband of 2nd respondent are brothers and are the landlords.

The case of the respondents/landlords in the Eviction Petition

6. The respondents contended that the son of the 2nd respondent by name Sri Syed Nizaruddin Ahmed, who is a General Power of Attorney holder of the 2nd respondent wanted to do hardware and sanitary business along with the sons of respondent nos.1 and 3, and he is a qualified mechanical engineer and both the mulgies were required for the said purpose.

7. They contended that they are all senior citizens and respondent nos.1 and 3 are also retired Government employees and respondent no.2 is a widow; and under Sections 10-B and 10-C of the Act, they are entitled to possession of the same by evicting the petitioners.

8. They stated that a portion of the subject premises was acquired in road-widening and consequently the area of mulgies was reduced.

9. It is further contended that petitioners made some alterations of the structure of the mulgies without obtaining any consent of the respondents, and this amounts to committing acts of nuisance.

10. It is also alleged that the petitioners are irregular in payment of monthly rents and that they had failed to pay the same for both the mulgies from September, 2014.

11. With the above allegations, the respondents filed both the R.C.s referred to above against the petitioners invoking Section 10(2)(i), 10(2)(iv), Sections 10(3)(a)(iii)(b) and Section 10 C(i) of the Act seeking eviction of the petitioners.

The case of the petitioners/tenants in the Eviction Petition

12. Counter-affidavit was filed by the petitioners in both the R.Cs. admitting the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

13. They contended that the respondents are well-settled; that the sons of the respondents are employed and settled in the United States of America and the plea of bona fide requirement of the premises for the son of the 2nd respondent is false.

14. They alleged that they have been regularly paying rents till August, 2014 and from September, 2014 they are sending rents through Money Order to the respondents, and that the respondents are refusing to receive the rents and returned the Money Orders.

15. They also alleged that the respondents wanted to sell the R.C. Schedule Mulgies and they have filed the eviction petitions only to get the