( 1 ) HEARD Sri Srinivas, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner. The unsuccessful landlord in both the Courts below is the revision Petitioner. The eviction petition r. C. No. 159/90 on the file of Additional Rent controller, Secunderabad was filed on the ground of bonafide requirement for personal occupation. The case of the Revision petitioner-petitioner in R. C. No. 159/90 is as follows: the petitioner is the owner of the schedule premises which consists of ground floor and first floor. Sri Arjuna Shivaji, the husband of the 1st respondent and the father of the 2nd respondent was the tenant in the schedule premises and he died leaving behind the respondents as his legal heirs. The schedule premises was originally let out for the purpose of the residence. Now the respondents are the occupants of the schedule premises on monthly rent of rs. 240/ -. The tenancy is oral. The petitioner and his family members are now residing jointly in premises bearing Door No. 59 situated at St. Mari s Road, Secunderabad which belongs to the petitioner. The family of the petitioner consists of himself, his wife, his daughter and two sons. The eldest son of the petitioner Sri Sanjay Kumar Agarwal is the student of final year, Mechanical engineering in MBS College and he also assists in his business in which the petitioner is partner. The other son Raju Agarwal is studying first year course in Industrial engineering in MBS college. The other portion of the first floor of the premises no. 133 is in occupation of auditors as one of the tenants. The eldest son of the petitioner bona fide requires the schedule premises. The schedule premises consists of 6 rooms, W. C. and bathroom. The present house of the petitioner consists of three rooms in the ground floor and three rooms in the first floor and it is not sufficient for the residence of his three children who are grown up and so, he requires the schedule premises for the purpose of providing separate accommodation for his eldest son. In the present house, there was kitchen room, drawing room and one bed room and two other rooms. The petitioner and his wife are using the bed room and drawing room while two sons and daughter are using the other rooms. Thus there is shortage of accommodation for living and so, he bona fide requires the schedule premises. The eldest son of the petitioner is likely to be married and so he requires the schedule premises. The petitioner or his sons have no other residential or non-residential buildings in the twin cities except the schedule premises. The respondent filed counter, admitting that Sri Arjun Shivaii occupied the schedule premises and that they are now continuing in the premises as tenants on a monthly rent of Rs. 240. 00. They further admitted that the petitioner and his family members are at present residing in the premises No. 59, St. Mary s Road, secunderabad but denied that his family consists of himself, his wife, two sons and one daughter. They further denied that the petitioner bona fide requires the schedule premises for self-occupation of his eldest son. They alleged that the ground of bonafide requirement is invented only to somehow evict them from the schedule premises and so that it can be let out to others on higher premium and rent by converting the premises into a non-residential one. They further denied that the schedule premises consists of six rooms W. C. and bothroom, but they stated that the schedule premises consists of two rooms, a hall with wooden partition, kitchen, stair-case, W. C. and bathroom. They also denied that the present residence of the petitioner which consists of three rooms in the ground floor and three rooms in the first floor are not sufficient for his family and that the schedule premises is required for providing separate residence for his eldest son. They alleged that the petitioner owns several residential and non- residential properties which he did not disclose in the petition. They f