decree in O.S.No.164 of 1969 on the file of the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the father of the tenant. However, in E.A.No.33 of 1996 in E.P.No.26 of 1976 in O.S.No.164 of 1969, it was held that the said decree is un-executable, null and void and therefore, the landlords have filed R.C.No.233 of 2004 on the file of III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad seeking eviction of the tenant. The other allegation of the landlords is that during the pendency of the above referred suit, a compromise was entered into between their father and father of the tenant on 30.10.1972 and as per Clause (4) of the said compromise, on termination of tenancy, whatever buildings, sheds, etc., constructed by the father of the tenant on the premises shall be the property of the plaintiff therein i.e. the father of the landlords and that the father of the tenant shall not be entitled to dismantle or claim any compensation from the father of the landlords. It is alleged that there was a room used for the office purpose, a service station and a small room situated on the north-western corner of the premises, which have been demolished after filing of the eviction petition. The Advocate Commissioner, who visited the premises, had also noted the factum of demolition. It is further alleged that by demolishing those structures, the respondents violated the terms of the compromise dated 30.10.1972 in O.S.No.164 of 1969 and the demolition of portion resulted in impairment of the value and utility of the premises as the premises can no longer be used as a petrol bunk and thus caused damage to the premises as per the provisions of Section 10 (2) (iii) of the Act and therefore, the tenant is liable to be evicted. The said ground of committing acts of waste has been included in the petition by way of amendment as per the orders passed in I.A.No.149 of 2005 dated 11.7.2005.
