DUBAGUNTA SUBRAHMANYAM, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed under Section 22 of A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, against the order dated 7-6-2000 in CMA No. 7 of 1994 on the file of senior Civil Judge, Nellore, setting aside the order dated 14-7-1994 in RCC No. 23 of 1989 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal District Munsif, Nellore.

( 2 ) THIS revision petition is filed by the tenants. Smt. Sarojanamma filed eviction petition seeking the eviction of the tenants on the ground of personal requirement for occupying the petition schedule premises by her third son Murali (PW2) to carry on business in gunny bags. The tenants resisted the eviction petition taking the plea that the requirement of the landlady is not bona fide. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the requirement of he landlady for occupation for the business of her third son (PW2) is bona fide. However, on the ground that during the pendency of the eviction proceedings another tenant of the landlady vacated another shop room and it was occupied by another son of the landlady and as the landlady is already is possession of one non-residential shop room, she is not entitled to seek the eviction of another tenant for her non-residential purposes. On that ground the Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition. Aggrieved by the orders of the Rent Controller, the landlady preferred an appeal in CMA No. 7 of 1994 before the appellate Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the landlady Sarojanamma died. Her husband and her sons came on record as the legal representatives of the deceased Sarojanamma in the appeal. The appellate Court also found that the requirement of the landlady is bona fide. He did not accept the reasoning given by the Rent Controller to dismiss the eviction petition. The appellate Court allowed the appeal and in the result, allowed RCC No. 23 of 1989 filed by the landlady and ordered the eviction of the tenants. Aggrieved by that order, this revision petition is filed by the tenants.

( 3 ) THE Rent Controller followed a decision of Full Bench of this Court in Vidyavathi Bai v. Shankerlal, 1987 (2) ALT 550, and dismissed the eviction petition. The Full Bench of this Court in the above decision held as follows:"under Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act a landlord in occupation of a non-residential building is not entitled, for carrying on his business or commencement of a business, to get back possession of another non-residential building in the occupation of a tenant, the bar under the section against securing eviction of the tenant of such non-residential building is absolute. Suitability, convenience and sufficiency of the non-residential building already in occupation of the landlord for carrying on the business of the applicant (landlord) or to meet the bona fide need of any other member of the family of the appellant (landlord), independent of and over and above the need of the applicant (landlord), are all irrelevant considerations in the context of construing the provisions in Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act, which, in clear terms, interdicts the landlord, in absolute tenants from seeking recovery of the non-residential building belonging to him in the occupation of the tenant. "

( 4 ) THE appellate Court relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in D. Dvaji v. K. Sudarshana Rao, 1994 (1) APLJ 5 (SC), came to the conclusion that the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Vidyavathi Bai case (supra) cannot be made applicable in the factual context. The Supreme Court held in para 3 of its judgment that finding of Full Bench in Vidyavathi Bai case (supra) whether the bona fide need of any other member of the family of the landlord, independent of and over and above the need of the landlord, is left open, since that question did not arise in Vidyavathi Bai case and the same question does not arise on the fac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document