( 1 ) THIS is a tenant s revision under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. hereinafter called the Act.

( 2 ) THE landlady Eshwaramma is the owner of three buildings. Herhusband is in occupation of one building doing brass ware business. Her second son is in occupation of another running a Bakery. The third building is rented out to the petitioner, who was running a Hotel from 1959. The tenant was also residing in the premises.

( 3 ) THE landlady filed a petition for eviction in 1979 on two grounds, (1) that the building was let out for a non-residential purpose, but the tenant was residing in the premises and thereby used the premises contrary to the agreement and (2) that the building is required by her first son who proposes to commence a new business.

( 4 ) THE tenant resisted the petition denying the allegations. Hecontended that he was running a Hotel in the premises in question and thus he is using it for a non-residential purpose only though incidentally he was residing with his family in a portion of the building. He also contended that the landlady s son is working in a Cinema Theatre and the allegation that he proposes to commence a new business is false and the requirement is not bona fide and the petition is filed with a view to get more rent by letting the building to others.

( 5 ) THE Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority found thatthe building was used for the purpose for which it is let out as the tenant has been running a Hotel and also residing in a portion of the building and the nature of the use has not been changed. However, on the second ground, both the authorities found in favour of the landlady holding that one of her sons requires the building for starting a new business. They also found that one of the buildings owned by the landlady is occupied by her husband who is doing Brass business and another by her second son, who is doing business in Bakery. The contention of the tenant that the occupation by the father and son of two buildings belonging to the petitioner would disentitle her under Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act for getting possession of another building was rejected, and the Full Bench decision of this Court in Vidyavathi Bai vs Shankar Lal 1# was distinguished on the ground that unlike the father, the mother cannot be considered as a member of the joint family and the occupation by the father and the son cannot be said to be the occupation of the mother and therefore, the bar contained in Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) is not attracted. On the finding that the requirement is bona fide, eviction petition was allowed.

( 6 ) THE tenant preferred a revision to this Court. It came up beforecur learned brother Seetharam Reddy, J. The learned Judge thought that the question is one of importance and refened the case to a Bench. That is how the matter is before us.

( 7 ) IN this revision by the tenant, Mr. Somakonda Reddy, the learnedcounsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the view taken by the courts below is erroneous and contrary to the relevant provisions of the kent Control Act.

( 8 ) ON the other hand, it is submitted by Mr. B. Subhashan Reddythat the occupation ot a building by the husband cannot be deemed to be the occupation of his wife and since the owner of the building is the, wife who not a member of the joint family, the fact that her husband and son are in occupat on of her buildings would not disentitle her from claiming eviction.

( 9 ) TO appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary to refer to becticn 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act. It is as follows:-"10 (3) (a):a landlord many, subject to the provisions of clause (d), apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building- (i) (ii) (iii) In case it is any other non-residential building, it the landlord is not occupying a non-residential building in the city, town or vilag