237, 238 and 236 of 1989 respectively.
Meanwhile, the appellant had also filed three other eviction petitions being R.C. Nos.
Therefore, The Rent Controller allowed the eviction petitions on those grounds adn left open the question whether raising the plea of agreement to sell amounted to nuisance or hot.
The appellant along with her husband and other family members is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling bangles.
759 and 760 of 1994.
All the appeal were heard together.
Mahamood Siddiqui is the tenant of both the floors of the building bearing No.21 2 373.
The Rent Controller also held that claim of permanent tenancy was mala fide and number bona fide.
In view of the additional finding recorded in the case of Ahmad khan that he had sub let the premises of which he was tenants and had also defaulted in payment of rent the High Court dismissed his Revision Application Nos.
The Rent Controller had also recorded the finding after appreciating the rival evidence that she was carrying on business as averred by her along with other family members.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS 9744 45 OF 1996 Arising out of SLP C Nos.
791 and 762 of 1994 and upheld the order of eviction passed against him.
As the tenants did number vacate she filed three separate aviction Petitions being R.C. Nos.136, 142 and 135 of 1980 under Section 10 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Act in the Court of the Second Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad stating that she requires the suit premises bona fide for carrying on her business.
As the landlords of the said premises were pressing them to vacate the same and as it was inconvenient to carry on their business from those three different places the appellant first requested and then gave a numberice to them to vacate the suit premises.
The appellant is the owner cf two number residential buildings bearing Nos.
All the appeal were, therefore, dismissed.
They were heard together by the High Court and were disposed of by a companymon order.
The tenants then preferred six separate revision applications in the Andhra High Court.
These findings were companyfirmed by the appellate companyrt again after appreciating the evidence.
136, 142 and 135 of 1980 that the landlady had entered into an agreement with them for sale of the suit property, and that they have a right of permanent tenancy.
Mahamood had further denied that he was a tenant of premisses bearing No.
1776, 1777 and 1785 of 1986 against Mahamood Siddiqui, Omer Siddiqui and Ahmad Khan respectively under Section 10 of the Act as the said tenants had taken up a false plea in their written statements filed in R.C Nos.
757 and 758 of 1994 and Civil Appeals arising out of SLP C Nos.9373 74 of 1995 are filed against the order passed by the High Court in C.R.P. Nos.
21 2 372.
The Appellate Court companyfirmed the findings regarding tenancy and bona fide requirement of the landladys title and claim of permanent tenancy were mala fide.
The Rent companytroller held that the landlady was able to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between them as claimed, and, thus denial of her title by those two tenants was mala fide.
Omer Siddiqui is the tenant of the ground floor and Ahmad Khan is the tenant of the first floor of the building bearing No.21 2 372.
The tenants feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Rent Controller appealed to the Court of the Chief Judge, City Small Cause Court, Hyderabad.
Against these orders of eviction Mahamood Siddiqui, Omer Siddiqui and Ahmad Khan filed R.A. Nos.
These eviction orders were passed by the Rent Controller on 11.4.1989.
The Rent Controller after appreciating the evidence on record held that the landlady does number own any other number residential premises and that she is number carrying on her business in the residential premises occupied by her The Rent Controller further held that the claim of the landlady that she requires the suit premises for her personal occupation for carrying on her business is bonafide and genuine.
He, therefore, allowed the aviction petitions and directed the tenants to vacate the suit premises.
These were the findings of facts recorded after appreciation of evidence.
9373 74/95 Smt.
The said family business is carried on in three rented premises.
These four appeals arise out of a companymon order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court and, therefore, they are heard together and disposed of by this judgment.
Fatima Bee V. Mohd Omer Siddiqui J U D G M E N T NANVATI, J. Leave granted.
In the revision applications filed by Mahamood Siddiqui and Mohd.
Both the buildings have two floors.
Civil Appeals arising out of SLP C Nos.8946 47 of 1995 are filed against the order passed by the High Court in C.R.P. Nos.
21 2 373 and Omer had denied his tenancy in respect of premises bearing No.
The Rent Controller also held that the tenants have failed to establish their claim that the landlady had agreed to sell the suit premises to them and that she had promised them number to evict.
21 2 372 and 21 2 373 situated in Lad Bazar, Hyderabad.
The High Court reserved the finding recorded by the companyrts below, set aside the judgment and order passed by the appellate Court and dismissed the eviction petitions filed by the respondent therein.
