Nanavati, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) These four appeals arise out of a common order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court and, therefore, they are heard together and disposed of by this judgment. 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. 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. 759 and 760 of 1994. The High Court reversed the findings recorded by the courts below, set aside the judgment and orders passed by the Appellate Court and dismissed the eviction petitions filed by the respondent therein.
(3.) The appellant is the owner of two non-residential buildings bearing Nos. 21-2-372 and 21-2-373 situated in Lad Bazar, Hyderabad. Both the buildings have two floors. Mahamood Siddiqui is the tenant of both the floors of the building bearing No.21-2-373. 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 appellant along with her husband and other family members is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling bangles. The said family business is carried on in three rented premises. As the landlords of the said premises were pressing them to vacant 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 notice to them to vacate the suit premises. As the tenants did not vacate she filed three separate eviction 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. The Rent Controller after appreciating the evidence on record held that the landlady does not own any other non-residential premises and that she is not 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 bona fide and genuine. He, therefore, allowed the eviction petitions and directed the tenants to vacate the suit premises. These eviction orders were passed by the Rent Controller on 11-4-1989. Again these orders of eviction Mohamood Siddiqui, Omer Siddiqui and Ahmad Khan filed R.A. Nos. 237, 238 and 236 of 1989 respectively.;