Order

Appellant is the landlord. Respondent is the tenant. Appellant sought eviction of the tenant on the ground that the premises were required for the bona fide need of the son of the landlord to start his business in those premises. Initially the petition of the landlord was dismissed and even the appellate authority concurred with the Rent Controller. The main reason for arriving at the concurrent findings was that the landlord had not stated in his petition the exact nature of the business which was required to be carried out by his son in the premises in dispute. The High Court on a revision filed by the land­lord, remanded the case to the appellate authority for deciding the appeal afresh, keeping in view the bona fide need of the landlord as pleaded by him.

2. The appellate authority, after remand, found that the landlord’s need to accommodate his son, Jayarajan, for the bona fide need for starting grocery business was established. However, while the matter was pending before the appellate authority, after remand, it appears, that the landlord got vacant possession of another premises situate adjacent to the petition schedule building belonging to him. On this ground, the t