S. R. K. PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed by the landlord against the tenant seeking the premises under bona fide requirement for running the cloth business by his son.

( 2 ) A brief resume of the background of facts is necessary in this case. Originally the landlord has sought for eviction of the tenant by presenting RC No. 368 of 1979 before the I Additional Rent Controller, hyderabad. The schedule premises bear nos. 21-1-756 and 757 as mentioned in the schedule. The said eviction is sought on the ground of bona fide requirement for personal occupation of non-residential premises for his son viz. , Shiv Kumar @ shankarlal to carry on wholesale business and also on the ground that the tenant has secured alternative accommodation and ceased to occupy the suit premises continuously for more than four months without any reasonable ground and also guilty of such acts of waste which have materially impaired with the value and utility of the suit premises.

( 3 ) THE same is resisted by the tenant, stating that the landlord himself is already doing business in the premises bearing nos. 21-1-754 and 755 in a "big area and the suit schedule premises is not required for the bona fide requirement of son of landlord and as the tenant failed to enhance the rent, landlord presented the eviction petition.

( 4 ) AFTER enquiry, the Rent Controller dismissed the application having been not satisfied with the grounds on which eviction is sought. Thereupon, the landlord preferred an appeal in RA No. 150 of 1987 before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes court, Hyderabad. The Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller on the counts of acts of waste and securing the alternative accommodation, but in respect of the bona fide requirement, the appellate Authority has not gone into the merits of the requirement, duly observing that the landlord is not legally entitled to seek the eviction of the tenant from the schedule premises for his occupation and basing on the decision reported in AIR 1988 AP 185 (Vidya Bai v. Shankerlal), rejected the case of the landlord for eviction. Thereupon the landlord has preferred crp No. 2029 of 1991. During the pendency of the revision, number of applications are filed to amend the counter as well as the petition and also rejoinder has been filed. They were all received. This Court remanded the matter in its judgment dated 17-12-1999. The matter is remanded by this Court to the Appellate Court with the following observations:"the issue of bona fide requirement cannot be considered with reference to the suitability, size and quality of the building etc. The factum of vacation of one mulgi by another tenant during the appeal pending is also required to be taken note of as it is now well established that the subsequent events also can be considered for the purpose of deciding the issues. Therefore, i am not inclined to record the finding whether the petitioner bona fide required the premises for establishing the business of his son. It is for the Appellate Court to consider the matter afresh keeping in view of the evidence on record and the decisions of the Supreme Court on this aspect and also taking into consideration of the subsequent events. "

( 5 ) IT is also observed that Supreme court in Boorgu Jagadeshwaraiah v. Pushpa Trading Company, 1998 (5) SCC 572, has made it clear that it is still open for the landlord to claim non-residential portion even if he is having another non-residential portion on the ground of suitable size and nature of living.

( 6 ) THE witnesses were recalled once again and they were examined and appellate Court once again disbelieved the bona fid$ requirement of the landlord. Thereupon, the landlord once again approached this Court by preferring present revision.

( 7 ) IT is not in dispute that another premises, which is located at Pathargatti has been gifted to his nephew by the landlord and another premises occupied by mohd. Qasim has fallen vacant, which is a n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document