( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 16-8-1994 passed in C. M. A. No. 6 of 1990, by which the learned Subordinate Judge, Nizamabad, confirmed the judgment and order dated 13-7-1990 in R. C. No. 14 of 1984 on the file of the Rent Controller, Nizamabad. The revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondents herein are the landlords.

( 2 ) ORIGINALLY, the eviction petition was filed by the landlord P. Narasimha Reddy. After his death, during the pendency of the appeal, his legal representatives Smt. P. Mangamma, his wife, and Dr. Mahipal Reddy, his adopted son, were brought on record. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as landlord and tenant, as referred to in the lower Courts.

( 3 ) THE landlord filed an eviction petition against the tenant on two grounds. The first ground was that the premises in question was required bona fide, because his adopted son Dr. P. Mahipal Reddy wants to start a clinic in the suit schedule premises. The other ground was that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rents from September, 1981 to May, 1984 amounting to Rs. 4,800/ -.

( 4 ) THE tenantdenied these allegationsof thelandlord and contended that the landlord does not bona fide require the premises in question on the ground that he has no son by name Mahipal Reddy. The tenant also denied that he was a wilful defaulter in payment of rent and contended that the landlord filed O. S. No. 47/81 for eviction, as the landlord was demanding enhancement of rent to Rs. 500/- per month and he refused the same. The landlord refused to take the agreed rent. He also contended that he has paid Rs. 4,500/- to the landlord in the month of June, 1984 through a demand draft and accordingly, the tenant submitted that the eviction petition filed by the landlord was liable to be dismissed.

( 5 ) THE landlord examined P. Ws. 1 to3 and marked Exs. A-1 to A-4. The tenant examined R. Ws. 1 to 3.

( 6 ) ON appreciation of the entire evidence, the Rent Controller, Nizamabad, allowed the petition filed by the landlord and directed eviction of the tenant. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the Rent Controller, the tenant filed an appeal before the Subordinate Judge, Nizamabad, in C. M. A. No. 6/90, which was dismissed on 16-8-1994. Being aggrieved by the said judgments and orders of both the Courts below, it is the tenant who has filed this revision petition.

( 7 ) THE learned Counsel, Mr. A. Gopal Reddy, appearing for the revision petitioner - tenant assailed the judgments and orders of both the Courts below and contended that the Courts below committed an error in passing the impugned orders and the same are liable to be set aside.

( 8 ) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel Mr. S. Satyam Reddy appearing for the landlord supported the judgments and orders of both the Courts below and con tended that the concurrent finding of fact recorded by thecourts below does not call for interference in this revision petition.

( 9 ) THE learned Counsel for the tenant con tended that since the landlord s son Dr. P. Mahipal Reddy, (P. W. 2) as per the admission in his evidence, has been running a clinic in the premises belonging to hisnatural father,heisnotentitled to seek eviction under Sec. 10 (3) (a) (iii) of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, (hereinafter called the Act ). He invited my attention to the relevant provisions of the Act, which reads as under: "10. (3) (a): A landlord may subject to the provisions of Clause (d), apply to the Constroller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the build (iii) in case it is any other non-residential building, if the landlord is not occupying a non-residential building in the city, town or village concerned which is his own or to the possession of whi ch he is, entitled whether under this Act or otherwise (A) for the purpose of a business which he is carrying on