JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision has come up before us upon a reference, for the purpose of clarifying whether anything said in the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Vidya Bai vs. Shankerlal, could be deemed to run counter to the decision of the Supreme Court in Padmanabha Setty vs. Papiah Setty. The point arises in connection with a landlord, who is not in occupation of a non-residential premises of his own but who is conducting his business as a statutory tenant in a non-residential premises belonging to another person and as to whether he could, in such circumstances, be debarred from seeking possession of his own non-residential building in the occupation of a tenant. The reference has become necessary inasmuch as certain doubts have arisen as to whether the decision of the Supreme Court in Padmanabha Setty vs. Papiah Setty (2 supra) continues to hlod the filed or not.

( 2 ) IN the case before us, it is admitted that the respondent-landlord is not living in a non-residential premises of his own and that the landlordis himself a statutory tenant of a building belonging to a third party. It is argued for the petitioners by Sri P. S. Murthy that the respondent-land

Click Here to Read the rest of this document