IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. NOs :4707 & 4708 of 2009 Between: Mohd. Kareem Khan ..... PETITIONER AND 1. Sai Baba (Died) and others. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos:4707 & 4708 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: These revision petitions are filed aggrieved by order, dated 19th September, 2009 passed by the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, in I.A.Nos.331 & 332 of 2008 in R.C.No.130 of 2004. Since the parties and the issue involved in these revision petitions are one and the same, these CRPs are being disposed of by this common order. The petitioner herein is the tenant and the respondents are the landlords. The petitioner herein filed the above applications before the Court below under Section 151 C.P.C., seeking to set aside the order, dated 7.9.2009 and to permit him to file the summoning witness petition to produce the official witness viz., the General Manager, Division No.1, HMWS & SB, Goshamahal, Hyderabad, or any other authorized officer on behalf of Water Works Department to furnish record of the deceased 1st respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that the 1st respondent filed the eviction petition against him on the ground of bonafide requirement to start business in the suit schedule mulgi. The 1st respondent was working as G.P.E. in Establishment Section, Division No.1 in the office of H.M.W.S. & S.B. Goshmahal, Hyderabad. Being a Government employee, the 1st respondent is not entitled to maintain the eviction petition on the ground of bonafide requirement viz., to start business. The Court below having observed that the 1st respondent required the petition schedule mulgi for his bonafide personal requirement to start a business for his additional income as he has to perform the marriage of his daughters and maintain family and his son is also grown up and he is fit to look after the business and he has no other residential mulgi in twin cities and that the 1st respondent was a temporary employee in water works department now, the 1st respondent is no more and at this stage, summoning of the records is no way helpful to the petitioner and that the matter is at the fag end and at this stage, there is no reason to consider the applications and set aside the order, dismissed the petitions. Having aggrieved by the same, the present revision petitions have been filed. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. It is the case of the petitioner that the 1st respondent being a Government employee is not entitled to maintain the eviction petition on the ground that he requires the schedule premises for doing business. As can be seen from the material on record, it is apparent that on 7.9.2009 as the petitioner failed to adduce further evidence, the matter was posted for arguments and on 10.9.2009 the arguments on behalf of the respondents herein were heard and at that stage, the petitioner herein filed the present applications seeking to permit him to summon the records of the deceased 1st respondent and to set aside the order dated 7.9.2009. The order under revision goes to show that the 1st respondent was a temporary employee in water works department and he filed the RC on the ground of personal requirement to start business for his additional income in order to meet the expenses of his family members and maintain them. The material on record goes to show that the 1st respondent deposed in his cross-examination that he was a temporary employee. Subsequently, the 1st respondent died and his legal representatives came on record and the matter has been coming for arguments. At this juncture, summoning of official witness or the documents with reference to the service particulars of the 1st respondent, is no way helpful to decide the main RC as rightly observed by the Court below. In this view of the matter, I have no hesitation to hold that the order of the Court below does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court and hence, the revision petitions are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, both the CRPs are dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari Date: 9th October, 2009 Nn. HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:4707 & 4708 OF 2009 09.10.2009