( 1 ) THE appellant herein is the tenant, whereas the respondent is the landlord. The landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant from the premises on the ground that he required the said non-residential accommodation for the purpose of setting up a new business for his son who was unemployed. The said petition was rejected by the Additional Rent controller, Hyderabad. The appeal against the said order was also rejected. The respondent landlord filed a revision under Section 22 of the Andhra pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). The High Court allowed the revision petition after setting aside the trial courts as well as the appellate courts judgments.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the High Court had totally misdirected itself in deciding the case of the landlord under section 10 (3) (iii) (c), whereas the case of the landlord was founded upon section 10 (3) (iii) (b) of the Act and, therefore, the judgment suffers from legal infirmity.

( 3 ) WE have perused the petition for eviction filed by the landlord and find that the eviction was sought under Sections 10 (2) (iii) (v) (sic