( 1 ) THESE four revision petitions arise out of proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 for short, the Act. The common question involved is whether the eviction petition fails for want of particulars as to the nature of the business which the landlord proposes to commence in the demised premises where eviction is sought under s. 10 (3) (a) (iii) (b) of the Act. As there is a divergence of judicial opinion, the question is referred to a Division Bench by our learned brother Jagannadha Rao, J. That is how the matters are before us now.

( 2 ) WE will refer to the parties as Landlord and Tenant for the sake of convenience.

( 3 ) MR. O. Adinarayana Reddy and Mr. C. V. N. Sastry, who appeared for the tenants in these cases contended that in a case where the landlord seeks eviction on the ground that he requires the premises for a business which he proposes to commence, it is necessary to state the nature and particulars of the business in the eviction petition. In the absence of these pleadings the eviction petition is liable to be dismissed not- withstanding the fact that evidence was adduced at the trial. In support of this contention, they relied upon three decisions of this court in Ramanjaneyulu v. Venkata Subbamma (1980) 2 ALT 3 1 5. Naganath v. Abdul Waheed, (1981) 1 APLJ (HC) 62. : (AIR 1981 NOC 138 ). P. Latchanna v. Appa Rao, (1982) 2 APLJ (HC) 137.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, it is contended by Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya and Mr. R. Prasad appearing for the landlords that no provision in the Act requires the nature and particulars of business to be stated in the petition itself and they are matters to be established at the trial by adducing evidence and ultimately the Controller that has to be satisfied that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide. In support of this view, the learned Counsel relied upon another three decisions reported in Vishnu Prasad Bhatt v. K. Narayan Rao (1982) 1 APLJ (HC) 223 : (AIR 1982 Andh Pra 375); K. L. Setty v. M. L. K. Setty (1982) 1 APLJ (HC) 345; and 5. Narayana v. Paidiraju, (1982) 2 APLJ (HC) 193.

( 5 ) TO decide these questions, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Rent Control Act. Section 10 (3) (a) (iii), is as follows : - "10 (3) (a) :- A landlord may, subject to the provisions of Cl. (d), apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building (i) in case it is a residential building - (a) and (b ). . . (ii) in case it is a non-residential building which is used for the purpose of keeping a vehicle. . . . . . . . . . . . . (iii) in case it is any other non-residential building, if the landlord is not occupying a non-residential building in the city, town or village concerned which is his own or to the possession of which he is entitled whether under this Act or otherwise - (a) for the purpose of business which he is carrying on, on the date of the application, or. (b) for the purpose of a business which in the opinion of the Controller, the landlord bona fide proposes to commence :" The rest of the Section is not necessary. 5a. We are concerned with S. 10 (3) (a) (iii) (b) in this case. From the language, it is very clear that what is necessary is the satisfaction of the Controller about the requirement of the premises by the landlord for starting a business. The Section does not deal with pleadings at all. It is the satisfaction of the Controller that is important and that satisfaction must be on a consideration of the entire material on record i. e. , the pleadings as well as evidence. It is obvious that a decree cannot be given on the basis of mere pleading that the landlord requires the building say for a fancy goods business or any other business for that matter. Ultimately, the question is one of proof. If the contention of the learned Counsel is to be accepted, the petition which does not contain the nature and particulars of the business