The requirement of a business which the landlord is carrying on or proposes to commence, within the meaning of Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, must be the requirement of the landlord himself and not the requirement of someone else.

( 1 ) C. R. P. No. 1280/1981 :section 10 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh buildings (lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, entitles the landlord to evict a tenant from a residential buiding if " he requires it for his own occupation". If it is a non-residential building (other than a garage) he can evict the tenant if he requires it "for the purpose of business which he is carrying on" or which he "proposes to commence". What is the precise meaning and scope of the words "for his own occupation"? Varying views have been expressed by various High Courts, and even within the same High court on this question. The learned single Judge before whom this Civil revision Petition came up for hearing in the first instance referred to certain decisions on this aspect, but could not find any uniform principle underlying them. He, therefore, thought that the said expressions ought to be authoritatively pronounced upon by a Division Bench and accordingly he referred the matter to Bench.

( 2 ) THE facts of this case may briefly be stated : The building concerned herein is a residential building. It is owned by the landlady, the respondent herein. She came forward saying that her family consists of seven members ; that they have purchased the building consisting of two floors, and that her family requires both the floors for their own occupation. Even by the date the landlady purchased, the previous landlord had initiated eviction proceedings against the tenant occupying the ground-floor and had also obtained an order of eviction from the Rent Controller. During the pendency of the tenant s appeal in the appellate Court, the building was sold to the respondent-landlady. After her purchase she initiated eviction proceedings against the revision-peitioner as well, who has been occupying the first-floor. The landlady did refer to the proceedings taken against the tenant in the ground-floor. The tenant (revision-petitioner) opposed the petition. He denied that the requirement of the landlady is bona fide. He raised various objections which need not be noticed at this stage, except his objection that after the filing of the present eviction petition, the landlady had obtained possession of the ground-floor which is enough to meet tha needs of her family. He submitted that the landlady s family consists of herself and her husband alone and. therefore, her contention that she requires both the floors for the occupation of her family is untrue.

( 3 ) ON a consideration of the evidence led by the parties, the Rent controller recorded a finding to the effect that the landlady has been living since a long time with her husband, husband s brother, his wife and three children and that, therefore, the family of the landlady must be said to consist of seven members. He held that the said family requires both the floors to satisfy their need. Accordingly, he ordered eviction. On appeal by the tenant, the appellate Court affirmed the order of eviction. The appellate court observed that it is for the landladv to decide with whom she wants to live, and it is not for the tenant to dictate with whom she should live; it is open to the landlady to allow her relatives or friends to live in her house, and it is for her to decide how much accommodation is required for her residence; it is not for the tenant to question the same.

( 4 ) SRI C. Poornaiah, the learned counsel for the revision-petitioner (tenant) contended that the aforesaid words occurring in sub-section (3) of section 10 of the Act should receive a strict interpretation having regard to the object and purpose underlying the enactment, and that the several decisions which have placed an expanded and extended meaning upon the said words are not correct. He submitted that a residential building must be required by the landlord for his own occupation, and not for occupation of bis relatives or friends. He submitted further that it is for the Court to decide whether the requirement is that of