[ 2s861 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P NAVEEN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1863 OF 2022 Petition under Sec.22 of Telangana Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) control Act. dateed 30.6.2022 in RCA No. '14 of 2O20 on the file of Chief Judge (FAC)

Addl.Chief Judge, city small causes court, Hyderabad preferred against the order dated 18.5.2020 in RC No.'|6i2018 on the file of the court of Principal Rent Controller, city small causes court, Hyderabad.

Between:

Sri M.A. Rahman alias Azam, S/o. Late M.A. Razak, Aged about 53 years, Occ:

Business, H.No.90/C, Nallagutta, Ragopalpet, Secunderabad.

...PETITIONER AND

1. Smt. Anitha Beula, Wo. Late K.E. N, Kumar, Aged about 54 years, Occ: Pvt.

Employee.Rl/o. H.No.6-5-230/1 5, Behind Praga Tools, Gandhinagar, Secunderabad.

2. Smt. Namratha, D/o. Late K.E.N. Kumar, Aged about 28 years, Occ: Student.

3. Nihar Sam David, S/o. Late K.E. N. Kumar, Aged about 24 years, Occ:

Student. Rr-1 to 3 are Rl/o. H.No.6-5-230/15, Behind Praga Tools, Gandhinagar, Secunderabad.

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER lA NO:'l OF m22 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the execution of order passed in RC No.16 of 2018, dt.18lOSl2O2O on the file of the Prl. Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Secunderabad and order of appellate court dt 3010612022 in RCA No.14l202(on the file of the Addl. Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad, pending disposal of revision.

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. K . JAGADISHWAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: None Appeared The Court made the following: ORDER )-

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CML REVISION PETITION No. 1863 of 2022 ORDER:

Petition is l]led under Section 10-C of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, (for short 'the Act') to direct the respondent to vacate and hand over the physical possession of the petition schedule property to the petitioners. The said petition was numbered as R.C.No.l6 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, City Small Causes Courl,, Secunderabad. ['t petitioner is the owner of the subject propertv. She is a widorv and aged. Therefore, taking cue from the Section, sr-rbmitted the above application for eviction of the respondent. On elaborate consideration, the Principal Rent Controller, Sccunderabzrd, recorded the finding that 1"t petitioner is entitled to iivail protection under Section lO-C of the Act.

. The next issue u'as u-hether 1st petitioner can ask for

2 vacation ol' thrce mulgies <-rccupied by the respondent or only one mulgi. This plea rr as raised before the Appellate Court in R.C.A No.l1 ol 2O2O. The plea raised there was considered by the 1.t Appellate Court. Having gone through the provision and order ol the Los.er Court, id Appellate Court also found that having rcgard to the age of the 1., petitioner, l"t petitioner is entitled to tzrkc recorrrse to Section I O -C ol the Act and order passed b_r, the PNR.J )D)

C.R.P.No.1863 of Principal Rent Controller is confirmed. Aggrieved by the said order, this revision petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently contends that only one of the mulgies in his occupation can be asked to be vacated out of three mulgies separately leased out, by taking recourse to Section lO-C of the Act. l"t petitioner owns nine shutters and eight residential portions in the complex. She can seek eviction of one of the residential portions or one of nine shutters, r,'"'hereas the revision petitioner is in occupation of three shutters leased out by lst petitioner. Therefore, at the most, l"t petitioner, by taking shelter under Section lO-C of the Act, can ask for eviction of one o[ the three shutters but not three shutters. The claim made by l.t petitioner before the Rent Cont