( 1 ) REVISION Petitioner is the landlord. He filed R. C. No. 355 of 1980 on the file of the principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad for eviction against the respondent-tenant under Section 10 (2) (i) of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short the Rent Control Act ) on the ground that the tenant committed wilful default, unauthorized sub-lease of a portion of the petition schedule premises and also on the ground of bona fide requirement of residential portion of the petition schedule premises for personal occupation and also on the ground that the landlord requires the non-residential portion for the purpose of business which he is carrying on as on the date of application.

( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience the revision petitioner would be referred to as landlord and the respondent as tenant .

( 3 ) THE factual matrix leading to the filing of the revision petition is set out as hereunder:- The revision petitioner is the landlord of the building bearing Municipal assessment No. 7-3-181 to 183 and 209 situate at Ghasmandi, Secunderabad. A portion of the said building comprising of municipal Assessment No. 7-3-183 consisting of four rooms is leased out to the tenant and the tenancy is month to month. The landlord filed the eviction petition in r. C. No. 355 of 1980 on the file of the principal Rent Controller under sec. l0 (2) (ii) (a), (3) (a) (i) (b) and 10 (3) (iii) (a) of the Rent Control Act. The grounds of eviction are that the tenant committed wilful default, unauthorized sub-lease of a portion of the petition schedule premises and that the landlord requires the non- residential premises for the purpose of his business, which he is carrying on, as on the date of the application.

( 4 ) THE eviction petition was resisted by the respondent-tenant and he contended that he has not committed wilful default and the landlord refused to receive the rent and he sent the rent by money order and finally the landlord accepted the money order and hence there is no wilful default. On the question of sub-leasing the premises the tenant took the ground that Vijaya Chit fund Company is not a sub-lessee and this business was commenced for the benefit of his son (P. W. 3) and hence there is no subletting as contended by the landlord. Adverting to the question of bona fide requirement the tenant resisted the plea on the ground that the landlord has filed r. C. No. 34 of 1979 against another tenant subba Rao for eviction from a residential portion of the first floor of the petition schedule premises and the order of eviction was finally confirmed by the High Court and the tenant vacated the premises. The landlord did not occupy the premises vacated by the said tenant and therefore the plea that the premises is required for his bona fide requirement is unsustainable.

( 5 ) ON the basis of the above pleading, the trial Court has addressed itself to the issues as to whether the tenant committed wilful default and whether the tenant has sub-let the petition schedule premises and whether the landlord requires the premises for his bona fide requirement. The parties were put to trial and based on the oral and documentary evidence the Rent Controller by his order dated 31-12-1990 has held that the landlord requires the front two rooms of the petition schedule premises for his business purpose and dismissed the petition on other grounds. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller the landlord filed a statutory appeal in R. A. No. 97 of 1991 on the file of the Chief Judge, City small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The appellate authority received documentary evidence by way of additional evidence both from the landlord and the tenant and got them marked as Exs. A-13 to A-18, ex. C-1 and R-23 to R-27 and the landlord did not press the ground of wilful default and also the ground of sub-letting the premises. Hence the only ground before the appellate Court was whether the demised premises is required f