THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.4504 of 2011 ORDER: 1 This revision is directed against the judgment dated 23.08.2011 made in R.A.No.25 of 2010 by the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad confirming the order passed by the learned I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad dated 30.11.2009 in R.C.No.333 of 2007. 2 The respondent herein filed the R.C.No.333 of 2007 against the petitioner herein under Section 10 (2) (i) & 3 (iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’) for eviction of the petitioner from the petition schedule premises bearing No. 3-1-392/3, near traffic police station, Niboliadda, Kacheguda, Hyderabad. 3 The respondent herein is the owner of the schedule premises and she purchased the same from her vendor Smt. B. Sharada Devi, B. Krishna Reddy and the said mulgi was leased out to the petitioner herein on a monthly rent of Rs.750/- exclusive of electricity and property tax. The petitioner herein was running a fair price shop and the tenancy of the revision petitioner is attorned in favour of the petitioner by the original owners and the same was informed to the revision petitioner in writing but the revision petitioner failed to pay the rents instead of the same he has caused a notice dated 19.04.2005 to the respondent-landlady for which the respondent gave a reply dated 25.04.2005. Thereafter the petitioner again issued a termination notice dated 02.06.2005 to the revision petitioner asking to vacate the schedule premises stating that the said mulgi is required for her own business. Thereafter the revision petitioner filed R.C.No.141 of 2005 under Section 8(5) of the R.C. Act for deposit of rents and accordingly the respondent appeared before the Court and gave bank account and the said R.C. was allowed by order dated 26.10.2005 and the revision petitioner herein is depositing the rents at the rate of Rs.750/- per month. But the revision petitioner has intentionally stopped payment of property tax to the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad the Corporation authorities issued a demand notice to the respondent-landlady. The respondent-landlady is having three mulgies and that she is carrying on tailoring business and doing embroidery works and the said mulgi is required for her own business. The suit mulgi is bigger than the other two mulgies which are small and the suit mulgi is more ideal for her business. 4 The revision petitioner filed counter stating that originally the rent was Rs.75/- per month and the same has been extended from time to time and the present rent is Rs.750/- per month and that when he has not enhanced the rent to Rs.3,000/- the respondent-landlady filed a civil suit in O.S.No.7887/2004 for injunction on the file of the Court of the X Junior Civil Judge, and obtained injunction orders and the said suit is pending. The revision petitioner has been depositing the monthly rents as per the orders of the Rent Controller in R.C.No.141 of 2005 and that the respondent-landlady has purchased the suit mulgi along with other five mulgies and not three mulgies as alleged and that all the mulgies are lying vacant and all of them are nearly about the same size and that he has never committed default. 5 During the course of enquiry, before the trial court, on behalf of the respondent herein one witness was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.11 were marked. On behalf of the petitioner herein two witnesses were examined as R.Ws.1 & 2 and Exs.R.1 to R.6 were marked. 6 The trial court framed the following points for determination of the dispute: 1. Whether the petitioner / tenant committed wilful default in payment of rents and therefore the respondent is liable to be evicted from the petition schedule premises? 2. Whether the petition schedule premises is required by the petitioner under bonafide requirement? 3. Whether the respondent has secured alternative accommodation, so, the petitioner is entitled for eviction of the respondent? 4. To what relief? 7 The trial court, having appreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence available before it, held allowed the said petition by its order dated 30.11.2009 and directed the revision petitioner herein to vacate the schedule premises within three months from the date of order. 8 The petitioner herein carried the matter by way of appeal before the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.A.No.25 of 2010. The appellate authority, while re-appreciating the entire evidence on record dismissed the said appeal by judgment dated 23.08.2010 and granted two months time to the revision petitioner to vacate the schedule premises and handover vacant possession of the same to the landlady. As stated supra, aggrieved by the same, the respondent–tenant filed the present revision. 9 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 10 It is to be seen that the landlord filed the eviction petition before the trial court basically for her bonafide requirement to commence tailoring business. Both the Courts below have upheld the contention of the landlady and ordered eviction of the revision petitioner from the premises in question. The entire evidence on record clearly shows that the mulgi in question is more convenient and suitable for the landlady to start her business. As rightly held by the court below, it is the prerogative of the landlady to start her business wherever she wishes to start, but not on the mercy of the tenant in an inconvenient place. The landlady has also succeeded in establishing her bonafide requirement. When two courts below have concurrently held that the revision petitioner is liable to be evicted from the schedule premises, this Court finds no merit on the factual aspects. The revision petitioner could not establish his case on any one of the allegations levelled against him. 11 Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. However, the revision petitioner is given four more months to vacate the schedule premises from today and handover the same to the respondent/landlady, failing which the respondent/landlady is at liberty to get the same in due process of law. ------------------------------ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 23.12.2011 Kvsn