THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition Nos.3476 and 3483 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two revisions are between the same parties and are interrelated. Hence, they are disposed of, through a common order. The petitioner is the tenant of the respondent, in respect of two items of non-residential property, bearing No.7-1-576 and 578, situated at Station Road, Secunderabad. The respondent filed R.C.Nos.170 and 171 of 2008, before the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad, for eviction. The monthly rent for premises is Rs.2,000/- and 1,800/-, respectively. The eviction of the petitioner was sought, on the grounds of bona fide requirement. It was urged that the premises are needed for running the business in furniture items and that the son of the respondent is already in that field. The cases were opposed by the petitioner. It is stated that the respondent already obtained the possession of a mulgi at Hissan Gunj Market, Secunderabad, by evicting a tenant, and in stead of establishing the business, he let out the premises for a higher rent, and thereafter, sold them away. After recording oral and documentary evidence, the learned Rent Controller, dismissed the cases, through common order, dated 24.03.2008. The respondent filed R.A.Nos.85 and 86 of 2008 before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. Through a common judgment, dated 29.06.2010, the lower Appellate Court allowed the appeals. Hence, these two revisions. Sri B.V.Subbaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the grounds pleaded by the respondent for eviction from the premises, are untenable and the object was only to lease the premises to others at a higher rent. Sri M.A.K.Mukheed, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the respondent did not obtain the possession of any premises and except making an allegation, the petitioner did not prove the facts pleaded by him. He contends that the petitioner cannot scrutinize the actual necessity of the respondent. Both the learned counsel have relied upon certain precedents. There is no denial of the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties. The only ground urged by the respondent for eviction of the petitioner from the premises is the one of bona fide requirement. He categorically stated that he intends to open a wooden and steel furniture shop in the premises. It was also mentioned that one of his sons is in the field and gained experience. The petitioner opposed the cases. On behalf of the respondent, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.3 were filed. The petitioner deposed as RW.1 and he filed Exs.R.1 to R.7. The Rent Controller rejected the eviction petitions and the appeals filed by the respondent were allowed. The respondent narrated the nature of his need of the premises. The plea was opposed mainly, on the ground that possession of another premises was secured by filing R.C.No.196 of 1999. Though the order passed therein was filed, it is not established that the respondent filed the R.C.C., or that he secured possession of the premises. The record discloses that the possession of the premises was secured by the wife of the respondent. The further facts such as that the premises were let out on a higher rent or was sold out, are in a way outside the scope of R.C.C. In case the petitioner felt that it is relevant, he ought to have examined the persons who were acquainted with the said premises. He did not take any steps in this direction. The lower Appellate Court has referred to fairly large number of judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it was held that the right of a person to chose the activity or nature of avocation sought to be carried out in the premises; is almost unbridled. Though the Rent Controller can verify as to whether the plea as to bona fide requirement is valid, a landlord cannot be put to such a strict proof, as though it is a suit for declaration of title. The lower Appellate Court has followed the ratio laid by the Supreme Court i n Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Company Limited[1], R.C.Tamrakar and another v. Nidi Lekha[2] and Raghavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery and Company[3] and held that the petitioner is liable to be evicted. This Court is not inclined to take a different view. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that his client would need reasonable time to secure alternate premises and prays for necessary direction. The same is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. This Court is of the view that having regard to the nature of the business undertaken by the respondent, he deserves to be granted time till the end of March, 2011. Hence, the C.R.Ps., are dismissed, however by granting time till 31.03.2011 for the petitioner to vacate the premises. He shall be under obligation to put the respondent in vacant possession of the premises on or before 31.03.2011 and shall continue to pay the rents regularly. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.25.10.2010. GJ [1] 1998(8) SCC 119 [2] 2001 (8) SCC 431 [3] 2000(1) SCC 679