Judgment

K. RAMASWAMY, J.- The respondent filed eviction petition under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (15 of 1960), for short the Act on the ground of bona fide requirement of the demised building. The Rent Controller directed eviction of the appellant. On appeal, the Principal Subordinate Judge reversed the decree holding that the respondent had several non-residential buildings as well as shops in K.V.R. Swamy Road and other buildings in Rajahmundary town. As the demand for enhancement of rent from Rs 100 to Rs 500 p.m., though the appellant had agreed to enhance to Rs 300 per month, was not agreed, the respondent filed the application for eviction. Therefore, it smacked of bona fides. On revision under Section 122, the High Court reversed the appellate courts order and confirmed the decree of the trial court. Thus this appeal by special leave.

2. The question of law that arises in this case is the interpretation of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act which reads thus :

"10. (3)(a) A landlord may, subject to the provisions of clause (d), apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building :

(i) in case it is a residential building -

(a) if the landlord is not occupying a residential building of his own in the city or village concerned and he requires it for his own occupation;

* * *

(iii) in case it is any other non-residential building, if the landlord is not occupying a non-residential building in the city, town or village concerned which is his own or to the possession of which he is entitled whether under this Act or otherwise -

(a) for the purpose of a business which he is carrying on, on the date of the application; or

(b) for the purpose of a business which in the opinion of the Controller, the landlord bona fide proposes to commence :

Provided that a person who becomes a landlord after the commencement of the tenancy by an instrument inter vivos shall not be entitled to apply under this clause before the expiry of three months from the date on which the instrument was registered :

Provided further that where a landlord has obtained possession of a building under this clause he shall not be entitled to apply again under this clause -

(i) in case he has obtained possession of a residential building for possession of another residential building of his own;

(II) in case he has obtained possession of non-residential building for possession of another non-residential building of his own."

3. The learned Single Judge placed reliance on Balaiah v. Chandoor Lachaiah{AIR 1965 AP 435} wherein the Division Bench held that when a landlord, who is in occupation of a non-residential building in a city, town or village, requires another non-residential building of his own in the same city, town or village, as the case may be, from his tenant, for the purpose of the business which he is carrying on which he can be shifting or for expansion of the business which he is carrying on or for commencing a new business, he can successfully claim eviction of his tenant, if he is able to satisfy the Rent Controller that the non-residential building which he is occupying is not sufficient or suitable for the purpose of expansion of his business or for the purpose of a new business which he bona fide proposes to commence, or that the shifting of his business has, in the circumstances of the case become inevitable. It would be open to him to prove that the non-residential building which he is occupying is not exclusively his own or that he is not entitled to its exclusive possession. Any one of the above mentioned cases would fall within the ambit of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. This view was consistently being followed. The learned Single Judge too followed the view and allowed the revision.

4. A reading of the above-quoted provision requires a critical analysis for its application. The landlord is required to prove his bona fide requiremen