( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against an order made in C. M. A. No. 25 of 1997 dated 7-12-1998 on the file of the senior Civil Judge, Adoni reversing the order made in R. C. C. No. 8 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif-cum-Rent Controller, Adoni.

( 2 ) THE revision petitioner is the landlord and the respondent is the tenant. For the purpose of convenience the parties will be referred to as landlord and tenant hereafter.

( 3 ) THE landlord filed R. C. C. No. 8 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif-cum-Rent Controller, Adoni claiming the relief of eviction of the tenant under section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short "the Rent Control Act") on the ground of bona fide requirement. The dispute relates to a non-residential premises in Adoni town. The case of the landlord is that he is a retired municipal Teacher and he had retired from service in the year 1992 and he is unable to maintain himself, his son, daughters-in-law, sisters and other members of the family with the meagre pension amount and with a view to enhance the income for the sake of his family by doing business in cutlery-cum- electrical goods in the premises let out to the tenant, he bona fide requires the premises for running business. The tenant had filed a detailed counter and had denied all the allegations. The tenant had taken a specific stand that the dispute is relating to the unreasonable demand made by the landlord for enhancement of rent and that is the reason why though the landlord does not bona fide require the premises he thought of the present rent control case. The parties had let in evidence and on the side of the landlord P. W. 1 to P. W. A were examined and Exs. A-1 and A-2 were marked and on behalf of the tenant he examined himself as R. W. 1 and Ex. B-1 was marked.

( 4 ) THE learned Rent Controller, after appreciating the. oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the landlord requires the premises bona fide and had ordered eviction by order dated 17-11-1997. The tenant aggrieved by the same filed C. M. A. No. 25 of 1997 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni and the appellate, authority by order dated 7-12-1998 had reversed the order of the learned Principal District Munsif-Rent controller. Aggrieved by the same the landlord had filed the present civil revision petition.

( 5 ) SRI K. Sitaram, learned Counsel representing the landlord-revision petitioner had contended that the bona fide requirement of the landlord relating to non-residential premises had been clearly established by both oral and documentary evidence and the Court of first instance had recorded clear findings and after a detailed discussion had arrived at a conclusion that the landlord bona fide requires the premises. The learned Counsel also had further contended that the appellate authority reversed the well considered findings of the court of first instance mainly on two grounds that the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide and this litigation was thought of in view of his demand relating to enhancement of rent that too periodically and the second ground on which the order of the learned Rent controller was reversed by the appellate authority was comparative hardship. The learned Counsel had further contended that in the case of bona fide requirement the question of comparative hardship and its consideration does not arise at all and the appellate authority had totally erred in giving such a finding. The learned Counsel had placed reliance on the decision reported in S. Gopinath Pillai v. K. Venkateswarlu. The learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 who are the mediators, Ex. A-1 notice and ex. A-3 reply notice and also had drawn my attention to the portions of the evidence which go to show that P. Ws. 2 and 3 who are related to the tenant are not having any enmity with the tenant. The le