Surayya Khanam, Hyderabad vs Mohd Sadiq, Hyderabad

               Hon'ble Sri Justice T. Amarnath Goud
                       C.R.P.No. 4144 of 2015
Order:

1.    This Civil Revision Petition arises out of Order dated

01.07.2015 passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes

Court, Hyderabad, in R.A.No.65 of 2014, whereby the order dated

20.01.2014, passed by the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad, in

R.C.No.200 of 2011, was set aside.


2.    The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/landlady owns

three mulgies bearing Nos.18-7-214/1, 18-7-214/2 and 18-7-214/3

situated at Talab Katta, Mir Jumla, Hyderabad; On 09.11.1990, she

had leased them to the respondent for carrying on furniture business

in the name and style of 'Saba Enterprises' on a monthly rent of

Rs.800/-, which was enhanced from time to time in terms of a rental

deed and the monthly rent as on the date of filing RC was Rs.2,250/-.

While so, during July, 2010, the petitioner requested the respondent to

vacate the said mulgies on the ground of bona fide requirement. As the

respondent failed to vacate the same, the petitioner filed an RC, which

was allowed.


3.    Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent initially filed

R.A.No.180 of 2012, but on request of both parties to permit them to

make amendments in the eviction petition and the counter, by order

dated 30.07.2013, the matter was remanded to the lower Court.       By

order dated 20.01.2014, the lower Court allowed the same and
                                    2




directed the respondent/tenant to vacate and handover the vacant

possession of the petition schedule property to the petitioner/landlady

within two months from the date of order. Aggrieved thereby, the

respondent/tenant filed R.A.No.65 of 2014, which was allowed and

the order passed by the lower Court was set aside. Hence, the present

Civil Revision petition by the revision petitioner/landlady.


4.    Learned counsel for the petitioner/landlady submits that the

husband of the petitioner was carrying on hotel business under the

name and style of 'Mohammadiya Hotel', which was abruptly closed

due to the inconvenience caused by the respondent; that if the

respondent vacates the petition schedule property, her husband can

restore his business; that the respondent had already secured an

alternative accommodation and that he is not handing over the vacant

possession of the same. The learned counsel further submitted that

trial Court, having considered all the facts and circumstances of the

case, rightly passed the eviction order. But, the lower appellate Court

erred in re-considering the same and erroneously held that the

petitioner or her husband do not have bona fide personal requirement

and that the petitioner had filed the eviction petition with a mala fide

intention.


5.    Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/tenant submits

that seeing the development of the petitioner through the furniture

business, the petitioner and her husband with a mala fide intention
                                     3




started furniture business; that they are not in need of the petition

schedule property and that their plea of bona fide requirement be

rejected.


6.    Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the

impugned judgment.

7.    As seen from the judgment under revision, it is to be seen that

the lower appellate court disbelieved the plea of bona fide requirement

taken by the petitioner.

8.    In order to pass an order of eviction, the landlady has to

necessarily show her requirement of the non-residential premises for

the purpose of continuing or starting business either of her own or

that of any of her family members. The petitioner had pleaded that

the neighbouring shops are not sufficient and not convenient for her

to carry on her own furniture business and she requires the petition

schedule property as well apart from the adjoining premises.

Enhancing the family income and the standard of living is a valid

bona fide requirement and the petitioner has a right to claim possession

of the tenanted premises to run a business for securing a better

standard of living and a better life for herself and her family. On the

other hand, the respondent has not disclosed any facts so as to

disentitle the landlady from obtaining an order for recovery of

possession of the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide

requirement. On this ground alone, the impugned judgment passed

by the lower appellate Court is liable to be set aside.
                                   4




9.    Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed, the

impugned judgment dated 01,.07.2015 in R.A.No.65 of 2014 on the

file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at

Hyderabad is set aside. Consequently, R.A.No.65 of 2014 stands

dismissed.   The Judgment dated 20.01.2014 passed by the Principal

Rent Controller, Hyderabad in R.C.No.200 of 2011 stands confirmed.

Respondent/tenant is granted six months' time from today to vacate

the petition schedule property.   Pending miscellaneous petitions, if

any, shall stand closed.


                                      ________________________
                                       T. AMARNATH GOUD, J.

28.09.2021 lur