HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.5301 OF 2009 And C.R.P.NO.5306 OF 2009 DATE: 16.03.2011 C.R.P.NO.5301 OF 2009 BETWEEN: The Singareni Colleries o. Co.operative House Building Society Ltd. .. Petitioner And M.Laxman Rao ` .. Respondent C.R.P.NO.5306 OF 2009 BETWEEN: The Singareni Colleries o. Co.operative House Building Society Ltd. .. Petitioner And P.Yellaiah ` .. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.5301 OF 2009 And C.R.P.NO.5306 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: Civil Revision Petition No.5301 of 2009 is filed challenging the decree and judgment dated 30.07.2009 passed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.A.No.245 of 2007 reversing the order dated 26.09.2007 passed by the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad in R.C.No.343 of 2004. Civil Revision Petition No.5306 of 2009 is filed challenging the decree and judgment dated 30.07.2009 passed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.A.No.246 of 2007 reversing the order dated 26.09.2007 passed by the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad in R.C.No.342 of 2004. The petitioner is the landlord in both the revision petitions and the respondents are tenants in each revision petition. Initially, the two mulgies were let out on a nominal rent of Rs.500/- per month and subsequently it was enhanced to Rs.700/- per month. However, the eviction was not sought on the ground of willful default in payment of rent, but under Section 10(3)(c) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Control) Act, 1960 i.e. for bona fide requirement of the revision petitioner for construction of community hall, reading room and sports room. It requires to be noticed in this context that earlier the respondents filed O.S.No.1098 of 2003 on the file of the XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the revision petitioner for the relief of injunction against the revision petitioner restraining from evicting the respondent except in accordance with due process of law. The said suit however, was decreed. It was contended before the learned Rent Controller by the respondents that in the counter filed in O.S.No.1098 of 2003, the revision petitioner contended that both the mulgies are required as they were contemplating to sell away them, whereas in the subsequent rent control cases, the ground on which the eviction was sought is for bona fide requirement for the purpose of constructing community hall, sports room and reading room. Therefore, the requirement of the petitioner is not bona fide and the rent control cases were filed before the learned rent controller with an ulterior motive to evict the respondents from the suit schedule property. The learned Rent Controller however, rejected the contention urged by the respondents and passed decree of eviction. In the appeals filed by the tenants, the learned appellate Court however, accepted the contention of the tenants and reversed the finding of the leaned Rent Controller and held that the respondents/tenants are not liable for eviction since the requirement is not bona fide. Now the point for consideration in these revisions is whether there are any valid grounds to interfere with the judgment passed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. In support of its contention that the schedule properties are not required for the purpose of constructing community hall, sports room and reading room, the respondent filed xerox copy of lay out plan-Ex.B.1 on which the learned appellate Court laid emphasis and held that since lay out plan shows that there is a separate place of 1200 sq. feet for construction of community hall, sports room and reading room, there is absolutely no necessity for the revision petitioner society to require the schedule mentioned mulgies for the above mentioned purpose which according to the respondents/tenant is mala fide. The learned appellate Court ought not to have relied upon Ex.B.1 xerox copy of lay out plan which had not been proved by the respondents/tenants. The revision petitioner society filed Ex.A.1 minutes of meeting held on 27.06.2007 at the society office and the said resolution reveals that it was resolved in the meeting to construct community hall, sports room and reading room covering place on which the schedule mentioned mulgies are situate. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3, who were examined on behalf of the revision petitioner is also to the effect that the petitioner society wanted to develop the land and a decision was taken at the meeting held on 27.06.2004 to construct community hall, sports room and reading room. The requirement of the landlord for personal use need not be static; it may change from time to time according to the actual needs of the landlord. In VATCHA CHANDRA KUMARI v ATAVA NAASIMHA RAO[1] the learned Single Judge of this Court held that it is for the landlord to choose where he wants to do business to augment his income and it is not for the tenant to advise. Similarly in Dr. G.JAGADEHWAR REDDY v DR K.DHARMA REDDY[2] another Single Judge held that the landlord may choose to do business at the place which he likes and the tenant cannot say that it will be convenient for the landlord to do business at a particular place. Therefore, unless the requirement is found to be prompted by any motive or ill-will to somehow seek the eviction of the tenant, merely because the requirement is different to the earlier one urged by the landlord, the relief sought for by the landlord cannot be refused. In the instant case, it is for the members of the society to decide as to how the property of the society has to be dealt with. Perusal of Ex.A.1-resolution clearly indicates that the members of the society wanted to construct community hall, reading room and sports room in the place which is occupied by the schedule mentioned mulgies. The very fact that the resolution has been passed itself indicates that there is consensus among the members of the society and therefore, it cannot be said that the requirement is not bona fide. The learned appellate Court rendered a decision which is contrary to the legal position that it is within the domain of the landlord to choose his requirement which would be beneficial and convenient and the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord. Further the learned appellate Court also relied its entire decision on Ex.B.1-xerox copy of the lay out plan cannot be admitted in the evidence. The view expressed by the appellate Court that the requirement of the landlord which is mentioned in the written statement in O.S.No.1098 of 2003 and in the rent control case subsequently filed being different, the landlord is not entitled for the relief, is contrary to law and therefore, is liable to be set aside in this appeal. Accordingly, the judgments passed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.A.Nos.245 and 246 of 2007 are set aside. The orders passed by the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad in R.C.Nos.342 and 343 of 2004 are confirmed. The tenants are hereby directed to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the schedule mentioned mulgies within three months from this day. The revision petitions are therefore, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Date:16.03.2011 Kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.5301 OF 2009 And C.R.P.NO.5306 OF 2009 DATE: 16.03.2011 [1] 1997 (3) ALT 459 [2] 2007 ALT (2) 559