In determining the bona fide requirement of a landlord for eviction of a tenant, subsequent events, such as the landlord taking a malgi on rent and starting a business, can be taken into consideration.

( 1 ) THIS revision is filed under S. 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act hereinafter referred to as the Act by the landlords against the judgment of the Addl. Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R. A. No- 7/1987 reversing the order of the Rent Controller in R. C. No. 506/ 1979.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the filing of this revision are in brief as follows: The petition schedule premises bearing D. No. 9-1-47 situated at Sarojinidevi Road, Secunderabad originally belonged to one Rajamma Widow of Balaiah, The petitioners are her grandsons. She had leased out the property to the second respondent herein on monthly rental basis. It is a non-residential building. The second respondent had sub-let the premises to the first respondent who is carrying on business in the said premises. Rajamma executed a settlement deed in favour of the petitioners in respect of the suit premises on 31-3-1972. The petitioners filed a petition under S. 10 (3) (a) (iii) (b) of the Act for eviction of the respondent contending that they require the premises for the business which they propose to commence.

( 3 ) THE respondent contested the matter stating that the petitioners do not require the premises for carrying on business and that they have filed the petition for eviction as the respondent refused to enhance the rent as demanded by them. Originally the petition was filed against the first respondent alone but later the petitioners got the petition amended by impleading the second respondent contending that the premises was leased out to the second respondent by the landlord and that the first respondent is the sub-tenant of the second respondent. The petitioners subsequent to the filing of the petition had taken a malgi situated in Naredpalli on rent and have started business in Generals goods and Bakery and got this incorporated in the petition by way of amendment.

( 4 ) DURING enquiry the first petitioner examined himself as P. W. 1 and apart from that they examined the lowner of the malgi which the petitioners have taken on rent for c arrying on business during pendency of this eviction petition as P. W. 2. On the other hand the proprietorix of first respondent was examined as P. W. 1. In addition to this oral evidence some documents were also marked on either side.

( 5 ) ON a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Rent Controller found that the petitioners bona fide required the premises for their, own business and consequently allowed the petition and ordered eviction of the respondents from the suit premises. Aggrieved by that order, the respondents filed an appeal before the Adds. Chief Judge, City Small Cause Court, Hyderabad. The said appeal was allowed and the order of the Rent Controller directing eviction of the respondents was set aside on the ground that the petitioners have failed to establish the bona fide requirement of the premises as on the date of filing the petition and that they have also failed to establish that they are carrying on business in a rented premises. It was also observed that the petitioners have not specified in their petition the particulars of business which they intended to carry on and that therefore they are not entitled for eviction. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority, the landlords have filed this revision.

( 6 ) IN this revision it was contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the appellate authority erred in coming to the conclusion that the petitioners have not established their bona fide requirement of the premises. It was further contended that the failure to give particulars of business in the application for eviction does not render the petition liable for dismissal. On the other hand the respondents contend that the petition for eviction is not maintainable inasmuch as one of the petitioners is a minor and he is not represented by a next friend. It was further contended that in