THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.5657 of 2011 ORDER: 1 This revision is directed against the judgment dated 20.10.2011 made in R.A.No.317 of 2010 by the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad confirming the order passed by the learned Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad dated 23.07.2010 in R.C.No.125 of 2007. 2 The respondent herein filed the R.C.No.125 of 2007 against the petitioner herein under Section 10 (2) (i) & 10 (2) (V), 10 (3) (a) (iii) (b) 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. 1471, situated at Pioneer Bazaar, Bolaram, Secunderabad. 3 The petitioner is the owner of the schedule premises. Originally the father of the petitioner was the tenant of the mulgi on a rnt of Respondent.90/- exclusive of electricity charges and after his demise the petitioner occupied the premises. The tenancy is oral. The petitioner committed wilful default in payment of rents, kept the premises under lock and key since two years and that the re required the said premises for commencement of money lending business by his son and the schedule premises is fit for the said business. It is further pleaded that he has no other premises in twin cities. 4 The petitioner filed counter stating that he has not committed wilful default in payment of rents, he is running sweet and chat Bandar business in the schedule premises, and that there is no other bonafide reason for the respondent to seek eviction of the petitioner from the petition schedule premises. 5 During the course of enquiry, before the trial court, on behalf of the respondent herein two witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.P.1 to P.9 were marked. On behalf of the petitioner herein one witness was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R.1 to R.11 were marked. C.W.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.X.1 is 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? 2. Whether the petitioner / tenant ceased to occupy the petition schedule premises? 3. Whether the respondent requires the petition schedule premises for bonafide requirement of his son to commence business? 7 The trial court, having appreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence available before it, held all the points in favour of the respondent / landlord and allowed the said petition by its order dated 23.07.2010 and directed the petitioner herein to vacate the schedule premises within two 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.317 of 2010. The appellate authority, while re-appreciating the entire evidence on record dismissed the said appeal by judgment dated 20.10.2011 and granted two months time to the petitioner to vacate the schedule premises and handover vacant possession of the same to the landlord. As stated supra, aggrieved by the same, the petitioner –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 on three grounds viz., 1) wilful default in payment of rents by the petitioner, petitioner/tenant ceased to occupy the petition schedule premises, and 3) for bonafide requirement of his son to commence business. Both the Courts below have upheld the contention of the respondent/landlord and ordered eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question. The entire evidence on record clearly shows that the petitioner has committed default in payment of rents to the respondent and he has ceased to occupy the petition schedule premises. The landlord has also succeeded in establishing his third contention of bonafide requirement. When two courts below have concurrently held that on the three grounds the petitioner is liable to be evicted from the schedule premises, this Court finds no merit on the factual aspects. The 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 petitioner is given two more months to vacate the schedule premises from today and handover the same to the respondent/landlord, failing which the respondent/landlord is at liberty to get the same in due process of law. ------------------------------ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 23.12.2011 Note:Wire at party’s costs B/o Kvsn