HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.2767 OF 2006 DATE: 28.03.2011 BETWEEN: P.Prabhu and others .. Petitioners AND G. Ravi Kumar and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.2767 OF 2006 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 19.04.2006 passed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, (the Appellate Authority under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960) in R.A.No.355 of 2002. I have heard the learned counsel on either side. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as landlords and tenants. According to the tenants, their father took the shop room bearing No.1-6-117, situated at General Bazar, Secunderabad on lease from the father of the landlords. It is not in dispute that the tenancy is continuing. The landlords filed R.C.No.82 of 2000 under Section 10(3) (a)(iii) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 against the tenants on the ground that the schedule mentioned shop room is required for the personal occupation i.e. for commencing business of fancy store. They also sought for eviction on the ground that the tenants denied the title of the landlords without any bona fides. The learned Rent Controller accepted both the grounds and ordered eviction of the tenant by his order dated 19.09.2002. Feeling aggrieved, the tenants/revision petitioners filed R.A.No.355 of 2002 which was heard and disposed of by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad by reversing the finding of the rent controller insofar as granting eviction on the ground of denial of title of landlord by the tenants without bona fides, however, concurring with the findings recorded by the learned rent controller that the requirement of the landlords for their personal occupation to commence fancy store business is bona fide and accordingly confirmed the order passed by the rent controller evicting the tenants from the schedule mentioned premises. The learned appellate authority granted two months’ time to the tenants to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the schedule mentioned premises to the landlords. Challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment passed by the appellate authority, the tenants filed the present revision petition. Both the Courts below concurrently held that the contention urged by the tenants that the landlords have their joint family business in another premises and that they obtained the eviction order in respect of the first floor of the same building in which the schedule mentioned premises is situated in the ground floor and the requirement of the landlords to commence fancy store business is bona fide. Both the Courts below also rejected the contention of the tenants that since the eviction was ordered in respect of the first floor of the same building, the landlords can commence their business in the first floor. Both the Courts have pointed out that in the eviction petition filed in respect of the first floor, the landlords have categorically stated that they require the said premises for the purpose of using as a godown in relation to the proposed business in the ground floor portion which is schedule premises. Thus, both the Courts below rightly rejected the contention put forth by the tenants and affirmed that the requirement of the landlords for commencing their own business in the schedule mentioned premises is bona fide. The findings recorded by the rent controller as well as the appellate authority are based on evidence and they cannot be said to be on any irrelevant considerations. This Court, therefore, does not interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below in exercise of its powers under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. For the reasons stated above, I absolutely see no merits in the revision petition and accordingly dismiss the same. The revision petitioners/tenants are directed to vacate the premises within four months from the date of this order and handover the vacant possession of the same to the landlords. There shall be no order as to costs. Date:28.03.2011 _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.2767 OF 2006 DATE: 28.03.2011