ORDER .

1. HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL ON BOTH SIDES.

2. THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH IN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 2585 OF 1997. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE LANDLORD WHO FILED THE EVICTION PETITION AGAINST THE RESPONDENT HEREIN ON SEVERAL GROUNDS.

3. BEFORE US, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT ARGUED ONLY THE GROUND OF BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIS SONS BUSINESS OF RUNNING A TAILORING SHOP. IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT AFTER THE FILING OF THE EVICTION PETITION THE LANDLORD HAS CONSTRUCTED TWO MULGIS IN HIS BUILDING AT RAMKOT. THIS IS ALSO REFLECTED IN HIS EVIDENCE AS PW 1. THE LANDLORD HAS STATED THAT HE WANTS TO USE THESE MULGIS FOR HIMSELF I.E. FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAILORING BUSINESS OF HIS SONS, NAMELY, NARESH KUMAR AND SRINIVAS. IN VIEW OF THE CATEGORICAL STATEMENT MADE BY PW 1 THAT THE LANDLORD OWNS TWO OTHER MULGIS, THE CLAIM MADE BY THE LANDLORD IN THIS APPEAL CANNOT AT ALL BE COUNTENANCED. MOREOVER, THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT WHILE ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSION HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON A DECISION OF THE FULL BENCH IN VIDYA BAI V. SHANKERLALL. IT IS NOW STATED THAT THE SAID DECISION IS APPROVED BY THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF D. DEVAJI V. K. SUDARASHANA RAO2. WE DO NOT, THEREFORE, FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL.

4. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED AND THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT IS AFFIRMED. NO COSTS.