ORDER

1. The appellant-tenant suffered a decree for eviction under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereafter referred to as the Act) on two grounds - (1) wilful default in payment of rent and (2) bona fide need of a non-residential building for starting a business. That decree was affirmed in the Court of Appeal. The revision against the same was dismissed in limine. In assailing the findings, Mr K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel, would submit that as regards the bona fide need, the petition for eviction does not plead, much less prove the necessary requirements of Section 10(3)(e)(iii) of the Act. In other words, he has to plead that he was not occupying a non-residential building in the city or in possession of such a premises. Such a plea is totally absent. As laid down by this Court in Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad{(1981) 3 SCC 103, 109} there must be pleas and proof thereof on these aspects. Therefore the petition on this ground of bona fide need was liable to be thrown out for lack of necessary pleadings.

2. As regards the arrears, there is no finding that there was wilful default on the part of the appellant-tenant. On the contr