JUDGMENT

NATARAJAN, J:— This appeal by special leave directed against a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court lies within a narrow compass.

The respondent/ landlord filed a petition under S. 10(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short the Act) to seek the eviction of the tenant/ appellant from premises bearing No. 1-1-250 Chikkadpalli, Hyderabad. The appellant is running a pan shop and a hire cycle shop in the front room of the premises and residing in the rear portion. Besides the leased premises, the respondent owns the adjoining building bearing no. I/l/249. In the said building the respondent was running a grocery shop in the ground floor and residing in the second and third floors subsequently constructed by him. It would appear that the respondent has since changed over his business to retail sale of liquor. On the ground of requirement of additional space for the grocery shop, the respondent sought the eviction of the appellant. The Rent Controller held that the respondent was not entitled to an order of eviction either under S. 19(3)(a)(iii) or S. 100)(c) because the leased premises was a separate building and did not form part of the building in which the respondent was carrying on his business. In the appeal preferred by the respondent, the Chief Judge, City Small Cause Court, Hyderabad, took a different view of the matter and held that even though the leased premises had a separate municipal door number it can be treated as forming part of the budding in the respondents occupation because both the buildings are owned by the second respondent and besides the two buildings are separate only by a single wall. For reaching such a conclusion, the Appellate Authority followed the ratio laid down in Balaian v. Lachaian AIR 1965 Andh Pra 435. As the Appellate Authority further found that the requirement of additional space by the respondent was a bona fide one, the Appellate Authority, allowed the appeal and ordered the eviction of the appellant. A civil revision filed by the appellant to the High Court did not meet with success and hence the appellant has preferred this appeal.

2. Though the proceedings before the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority were conducted on the footing that the respondent was entitled to seek the appellant s eviction under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) as well asunder S. 10(3)(c), it was conceded before us by Mr. Nambiar, learned counsel for the respondent that the tenants eviction was sought for only under S. 10(3)(c) viz. requirement of additional space for the respondents business. In such circumstances the only factor for determination is whether the respondent can seek the appellants eviction from the tenanted building on the ground he requires additional accommodation for his business.

3. Before we proceed to deal with the question, it is necessary to State a few facts. Originally, a row of buildings comprised in door numbers 1- 1-248 to 1- 1-251 were owned by one B. Kistiyah and after him by one Rambai. The said Rambai sold the buildings in the row to different persons. The respondent and his brother were two of such purchasers and they purchased premises No. 1-1-248 and 1-1-249. Subsequently, in a partition between them, premises No. 1-1-249 was allotted to the respondent and premises No. 1-1-248 was allotted to his brother. After the partition was effected, the respondent constructed two storeys over his building by erecting concrete pillars on both sides of his building. At that time, the suit premises bearing No. 1- 1-250 was owned by an advocate by name Sri S. Sitaram Rao. When the concrete pillars were erected, Sitaram Rao complained of encroachment by the respondent and eventually, the dispute was resolved by the respondent himself purchasing Sitaram Raos house viz. No. 1-1-250. After constructing the two floors, the respondent shifted his residence to those floors and utilised the entire ground floor for his business. The appellant who