( 1 ) IF the golden rule of interpretation that the ordinary meaning of the words used by the statute and the grammatical sense thereof should be adhered to, there could be little doubt that a landlord already in occupation of a non-residential building of which he is the owner or to the possession of which he is entitled under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and eviction) Control Act, 1960 (the act ) or otherwise, could not invoke Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act for eviction of a tenant in occupation of another non-residential building belonging to him (the landlord) in the sa me city, town or village, for the purpose of business which he (the landlord) is carrying on or for the purpose of a business which he bona fide proposes to commence. A Division Bench consisting of Basi Reddy, J. , and Gopal Rao ekbote, J. , (as he than was), however, took a contrary view in Balaiah s case 1. P. A. Choudary, J , before ,vhom this revision petition was posted for hearing earlier, doubted the correctness of the ruling of the said Division bench; hence, on reference, this is before this Full Bench.

( 2 ) NOW the facts in brief. The first respondent herein (Shankarlal),hereinaft

Click Here to Read the rest of this document