Judgment

DUTT, J. :- This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the revision petition of the appellant against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Guntur, whereby he affirmed the order of the Rent Controller, Guntur, directing the eviction of the appellant from the disputed shop-room.

2. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are repectively the father and son. The respondents filed a petition under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act, before the Rent Controller, Guntur, praying for an order of eviction against the appellant from the disputed shop-room on the ground that it was bona fide required for the respondent No. 2, who had passed the B. Com. examination, and would start a business in readymade garments in the disputed shop-room. The petition was contested by the appellant. It was inter alia denied by the appellant that the shop-room was bona fide required by the respondents as alleged.

3. The learned Rent Controller after considering the evidence adduced by the parties passed the eviction order against the appellant holding, inter alia, as follows :

"Thus, after careful scrutiny of the entire evidence I had no two minds in coming to the conclusion that the petitioners required the suit shop for their personal occupation, namely, for the business of P.W. 2. I find there is an element of need and it is a bona fide one and not actuated by any oblique motive. I find there is absolute necessity for P.W. 2 to have his business in the suit shop. Thus, I find the petitioners had brought home the point in their favour. I find that there are valid grounds to order eviction of the respondent."

4. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Rent Controller, the appellants preferred an appeal to the Sub-ordiante Judge, Guntur, who, however, affirmed the findings of the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. The appellant preferred a revision petition under S. 21 of the Act before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge. As stated already, the High Court dismissed the revision petition. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

5. The only point that has been urged on behalf of the appellant is that in the absence of any averment of the facts constituting the grounds or conditions of eviction, as contained in sub-sec. (3)(a)(iii) of S. 10 of the Act, the Courts below were not justified in passing the order of eviction against the appellant. Subsection (3)(a)(iii) provides as follows :

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

.................................................

(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 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 :"

[The provisos are not relevant for our purpose and, as such, they are omitted.]

The conditions which are necessary to be fulfilled for the purpose of getting an order of eviction under sub-clause (iii) are :

(1) The building is a non-residential building.

(2) The landlord is not occupying a nonresidential building in the city, town or village concerned, either belonging to him or to the possession of which he is entitled under the Act or otherwise.

(3) Either he requires the building for the purpose of business which he is carrying on or he bona fide proposes to commence a business.

6. There can be no doubt that under the law of pleadings facts mentioned in sub-clause (iii) are to be pleaded in