( 1 ) THIS is a landlord s revision againsi the order of the Rent controller, Rajahmundry as confirmed by the order of the Appellate authority dated 21-3-1983 dismissing the petition for eviction.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was living along with the members of the jointfamily in their ancestral house in Dommeru Village, Kovvuru Taluk, West godavari District. The family owns another building bearing Door No. 330 (36-7-39) situate at Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry. The building at Rajahmundry was let out to the respondent-tenant by the maternal uncle of the petitioner, acting as the guardian. The tenant was running a Nursing home in the said building. There was a partition between the members of the family and the building at Rajahmundry fell to the share of the petitioner.

( 3 ) AS the petitioner wanted to live separately after the partition, hefiled a petition for eviction stating that as he grew of age, he wants to live separately and that he dees not own any other building either in Rajahmundry or elsewhere. The petitioner also issued a notice on 13-1-1976 asking the tenant to vacate the premises, prior to the filing of the eviction petition.

( 4 ) THE respondent-tenant resisted the petition contending inter aliathat the lequirement of the landlord for residence is not bona fide, that the petititioner owns several other buildings in Rajahmundry, that the suit premises is a non-residential building and that the eviction petition is prompted by ulterior motives and is a ruse to get more rent.

( 5 ) BOTH sides adduced oral and documentary evidence and on aconsideration of the same, the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate authority found that the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide and dismissed the petition. Challenging the validity of these orders, the petitioner filed the Revision Petition.

( 6 ) WHEN the matter came up before the learned Single Judge, it wascontended by the tenant that the suit building is a non-residential building and as such it cannot be required for a residential purpose and that the building having been let out for a con-residential purpose must be deemed to be a non-residential building. The learned Single Judge referred the (b) any furniture supplied or any fittings affixed by the landlord for use in such house or hul or part of a house or hut, but does not include a room in a hotel or boarding house ;" "residential Building" is not defined under the Act. We find the words residential building and non-residential building only in Section 10 of the act. While the tenant contends that the building is a non-residential building in as much as it is let out for a non-residential purpose viz. , to establish a Nursing Home, the landlord contends that the purpose for which the building is let out is not the criteria and other factors such as the structure and nature of the building whether it is intended or capable of being used for a residential purpose must also be taken into account. It is common knowledge that some buildings can be used both for residential and non-residential purposes. For instance, a mulgi, a shop or an Office room without other amenities such as kitchen etc. , are undoubtedly non-residential buildings. On the other hand, houses with facilities such as kitchen, lavatories, bath rooms are essentially residential buildings. They are some times let out for non-residential use such as office accommodation, Schools, Clinics or Nursing Homes. There is no difficulty in regard to the first category. The problem presents only when a residential building is let out tor a non-residential purpose. Several instances where houses which are constructed for residence are let out for Office purposes depending upon the exigencies of the situation. This question had come up before Courts several times.

( 7 ) IN C. R. P. No. 1754 of 1984 a similar question arose namely, whether a building let out for a non-residential purpose can be required for residential use. A Division Bench of thi