ORDER
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the orders passed by the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in RA No.114 of 1988 dated 24-1-1994 setting aside the order of the learned Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad in RC No.55 of 1982 dated 29-2-1988.
2. The petitioners are the landlords of Mulgi No.7124 now renumbered as 1-3-38 and 1-3-39 of Mahankali Street, Secunderabad. In this case we are concerned only with the mulgi bearing No. 1 -3-39. The father of the petitioners purchased this premises. Even by that date itself the respondent was tenant. Therefore, tenancy was attorned in favour of the petitioner purchaser. Subsequently in the year 1982 the petitioners filed application before the Rent Controller for eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal requirement namely to commence business in kirana and general stores for petitioners 3 and 4. That application was allowed by the Rent Controller on 29-2-1988 against which an appeal was filed in RA No.114 of 1988 before the appellate authority. However, it so transpired during the pendency of the appeal that the petitioners-landlords filed another eviction petition in respect of another
portion of the mulgi bearing No.1-3-38 in RC No.159 of 1984 and it was allowed. By virtue of the said orders the landlords took possession of the premises bearing No.1-3-38 on 3-12-1991. Taking into consideration the later events that the petitioners took possession of another premises adjoining the demised premises and taking into consideration the law laid down in Full Bench decision of this Court in Vidya Bai v. Shankerlal, , and also the decision of the Supreme Court in Devaji v. K. Sudershana Rao, 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 729, the appellate Court allowed the appeal of the tenant by an order dated 24-1-1994 against which the present revision has been carried by the landlords.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners landlords submits that the premises which was taken possession of by the landlords in another RC No.159 of 1984 was only 3 feet width and 12 feet length and it would not be convenient for the petitioners to commence the business of general stores and kirana and this aspect was not considered by the appellate Court. Further it is stated that the aspects of quality and size of property held by the petitioner and the requirement of the petitioners were not properly appreciated even though the appellate Court is entitled to take subsequent events into consideration. Mere fact that a portion of a non-residential character was taken possession does not ipso facto disentitled the landlords to claim balance portion of the same mulgi. Hence he submits that the order of the appellate Court is illegal and contrary to law.
4. On the other hand the learned Counsel appearing for the tenant submits that the appellate Court disbelieved the version of the petitioners on the ground that there no evidence was adduced by the petitioners 3 and 4 for whose benefit the demised premises was required and the appellate Court also considered that even
though another premises was taken possession by 1991 no business was commenced and therefore bona fide requirement was not established. Since finding on this issue was recorded based on the evidence it would not be proper to interfere in the revision under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. Further, the learned Counsel also submits that the landlords have not produced any evidence whatsoever with regard to the dimensions of the suit premises or the premises which is in possession of by virtue of the order passed by the Rent Controller in RCNo.159 of 1984. Therefore, he submits that the order of the lower Court cannot be interfered with by this Court.
5. There is no dispute that the parameters of interference under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act are very limited, yet powers are more wider than the powers of the civil Court under Section 115 CPC. This Court has explained the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act in Bhupendra N. Patel v. Harshavardhan Chokkani, CRP 2236 of 1997, dated 19-7-1999. Therefore the validity of the order was also to be gone into while dealing with the matter under Section 22 of the Act to a limited extent. Admittedly, in the instant case, subsequent events arose when the matter was pending before the appellate Court. Before the rent control Court the order was passed in favour of the landlords. On account of subsequent events namely that the landlords got into possession of another premises bearing No.1-3-38 the need for additional accommodation of a non-residential portion would not arise and basing on the dicta laid down by the Full Bench decision of this Court in Vidya Bai case (supra) which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Devaji’s case (supra) the Judge held that the
landlords’ cannot claim another non-residential accommodation. But the Full Bench decision of this Court in Vidya Bai’s case and the decision of the Supreme Court in Devaji’s case (supra) were explained by the Supreme Court in the later decision reported in B. Jagadesharaiah and Sons v. Puspa trading Company, 1998 (3) ALT 26 (SC), wherein their Lordships held that the aspect of the quality, size and suitability of the building are also required to be considered when a claim is made by the landlord, for non-residential accommodation even though he is in possession of another non-residential accommodation, therefore, the matter has to be reconsidered by the appellate Court in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in B. Jagadeshwaraiah ‘s case (supra).
6. Under these circumstances, I am satisfied that the order of the appellate Court is not sustainable. Accordingly, the order of the appellate Court is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the appellate Court for fresh consideration with regard to the quality, size and suitability of the accommodation. The appellate Court shall now consider the matter after giving an opportunity to the parties on the material available on record. It is made clear that the parties are not permitted to lead any fresh evidence after the remand. The appellate Court shall consider the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. Civil revision petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.