( 1 ) THE Review Petitioner herein was a landlord and the respondent herein was a tenant of the petition schedule premises. The petitioner herein filed r. C. C. No. 223 of 1981 on 27-7-1981 in thecourt of the Principal Rent Controller, hyderabad for eviction by terminating the tenancy of the respondent herein on various grounds. The Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad, on evidence dismissed the claim of the landlord-petitioner herein. Aggrieved by the aforesaid oider, the landlord-review petitioner herein carried the matter in appeal by filing R. A. No. 19 of 1987 in the Court of the Additional Chief Judge, city Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The learned Judge on hearing both sides dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment the landlord- review petitioner herein filed C. R. P. No. 679 of 1994 in this Court. This Court dismissed the aforesaid C. R. P. by an order dated 5-2-1997. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the landlord-review petitioner herein filed SLP (C) No. 15734 of 1997 in the Hon ble Supreme Court of India. On hearing the Hon ble supreme Court passed the following order:"learned Counsel for the petitioner states that a question about additional evidence being wrongly disallowed by the appellate Court was argued in revision application before the learned single Judge but as group of matters was disposed of on the same day though by separate orders it appears that the learned Single Judge might have missed to consider this point. Under these circumstances, he submitted that we may consider this question or permit the petition to go by way of review before the learned single Judge. All that can be said is that it will be open to the petitioner to file review petition before learned single Judge on the grievance which he has made before us that though the point was argued it was not considered by the learned single Judge. We express no opinion on this question. It will be for the learned Judge to consider the review petition if filed, on its own merits and in accordance with law. Learned Counsel for the petitioner accordingly, seeks leave to withdraw this Special Leave Petition with a view to filing a review petition before the learned single Judge in the revision application No. 679 of 1994. It is obvious that as the Special Leave Petition was filed in this court against the order in revision petition, the time taken in this Court during the pendency of this SLP would be available to the petitioner for being excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. It will be open to the petitioner to apply for condonation of delay in the proposed rev ,ew proceedings in accordance with law. The Special Leave Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. "

( 2 ) AFTER withdrawing the Special Leave Petition, the landlord-reviewpetitioner herein filed the review petition before this Court as per the directions of the Hon ble Supreme Court. The delay in filing the review petition was condoned and the review petition was heard "on its merits and in accordance with law" as directed by the Hon ble Supreme Court.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel Mr. C. P. Sarathy appearing on behalf of the reviewpetitioner herein submitted at the Bar that the subsequent events which occurred during the pendency of eviction proceedings can be taken into consideration. The learned Counsel further submitted at the Bar that as per the contention of the review petitioner herein that he wanted to shift from elur to Hyderabad for starting a new business stands proved. The learned counsel invited my attention to four documents filed in the proceedings viz. , (1) bow fide certificate dated 23-12-1991 of the petitioner s son studying in hyderabad; (2) bond fide certificate of the petitioner s daughter studying in hyderabad; (3) petitioner s L. P. G. Transfer Advise Note dated 16-6-1990 and subscription voucher; and (4) petitioner s Bank Pass Book. All these documents were filed by the petitioner in R. A. No. 19 of 1997 before the Additional Chie