( 1 ) THE order dated 8-7-1997, passed by the court of the Subordinate Judge-cum- appellate authority, Machilipatnam, Krishna district, in C. M. A. No. 5 of 1987, filed by the respondent herein under Section 20 of the a. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act, 1960 (for short the Act ), against the order of eviction suffered by her in R. C. C. NO. 45 of 1982, dated 30-4-1997, on the file of the Court of the Rent Controller, machilipatnam, Krishna District, is assailed in this revision petition. By the impugned order, the appelllate authority reversed the order of eviction and dismissed the Rent control case, filed by one Smt. Urimi kamakshamma. Initially, Kamakshamma filed appeal before the Court of the subordinate Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna district, and during the pendency of the said appeal, she died. Therefore, her legal representatives; her husband, sons and daughters were brought on record by an order dated 29-11-1990, passed in I. A. No. 1313 of 1990. They filed this C. R. P. under Section 22 of the Act against the reversing order passed by the appellate authority.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: Late Smt. Kamakshamma, wife of the 2nd petitioner herein, succeeded to the property of her father-in-law comprising four separate non-residential buildings bearing Municipal (new) Nos. 11/808, 11/809, 11/811 and 11/812. In 1954 or so, the husband of the respondent herein took building bearing Municipal No. 11/812 (old no. 11/603) on lease for carrying on charcoal business. After the death of her husband, the respondent continued the tenancy, and is admittedly doing joint family business with the help of her son hari Babu-R. W. 1. The landlady also let out the adjacent shop bearing Municipal no. 11/811 to one K. Purnachandara Rao. In August, 1982, the landlady issued notice- ex. A-1 to the respondent calling upon to vacate the premises on the grounds that the tenant had sublet the premises to Hari Babu and that she bona fide required the premises for commencing wholesale and retail business in kirana items by his educated unemployed sons namely Urimi Lakshmi suryanarayana- (P. W. 2), 8th petitioner herein and Urimi Taraka Lakshmi Venkata lingeswara Rao, 5th petitioner herein. The landlady also issued evictiion notice- ex. A-3 to Purnachandara Rao, to immediately vacate the premises bearing municipal No. 11/811.

( 3 ) AS the respondent did not vacate the premises bearing Municipal No. 11/812, the landlady filed Rent Control case under sections 10 (2) (ii) (a) and 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the act alleging that the respondent sublet the premises to Hari Babu-R. W. l, that she bom fide required the premises for commencing business for her third and sixth sons, and that she required the premises to convert the tiled roof into one with RCC. The respondent opposed the eviction petition contending that the landlady is not entitiled to seek eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement. The respondent denied the allegation that she let out the premises stating that Hari Babu is her son and that he was brought into business to help her as she became old. The charcoal concern being joint family business, bringing R. W. 1 to help her, does not amount to subletting. The landlady sold away the other two business premises bearing Municipal Nos. 11/808 and 11/809, besides getting back possession of premises bearing Municipal No. 11/811, and therefore, she is barred from seeking eviction under the Act.

( 4 ) THE landlady examined her husband, 2nd petitioner herein as P. W. I, and her 6th son as P. W. 2, besides marking Exs. A-l to a-6. The tenant examined her son Hari babu as R. W. 1 and another person as R. W. 2, and marked Ex. B-1. The learned Rent controller on appreciation of evidence held that the requirement of the landlady is bom fide, and accordingly ordered eviction of the tenant-respondent by order dated 30-4-1987.

( 5 ) THE respondent filed an appeal being c. M. A. No. 5 of 1987 under Se