( 1 ) RESPONDENT is the landlady. Petitioner is the tenant. The respondent laid the action under Section 10 (3) (Hi) (a) of the Andhra Pradesh buildings (Lease. Rent and Eviction) Control Act (15 of 1960), for short "the Act". The learned Rent Controller dismissed the petition. On appeal, it was reversed and directed ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises. Thus this revision petition.

( 2 ) THE case of the respondent is that she is- running medical shop business in rental house opposite to the demised premises, and she purchased the premises under a registered sale-deed dated July 30, 1980 from her vendor for valuable consideration. By a registered notice dated august 7, 1980, the petitioner was intimated of the petitioner acknowledged the same. Then she got issued a registered notice dated August 24; 1980 requiring the petitioner to vacate the premises for her occupation. Since the petitioner did not vacate, she initiated action under the above provision, for his ejectment.

( 3 ) THE petitioner resisted contending that the claim of the respondent is not bona fide. On an earlier occasion, she obtained possession of different building from her tenant on the ground that the premises was required for personal occupation. After obtaining possession, she leased it out initially to the Lipton Tea Company and after ejectment, instead of occupying it, leased out as godowns of Block Development Officer, for non-residential purpose and then to a medical firm. That premises is suitable for doing her business for more than twenty two years to the date of application. Therefore the petition is not bona fide. The Controller has held that the claim of the respondent is not bona fide and dismissed the petition. The appellate authority held that the requirement if the respondent is bona fide. It also held that the proceedings in the earlier case of ejectment for personal occupation of a previous tenant is irrelevant for the purpose of this case. Thus it ordered ejectment of the petitioner.

( 4 ) IN this revision, Sri A. Suryanarayana, representing Sri M. V. S. Sureshkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner raised two-fold contentions. The respondent omitted to plead in the petition that she had other building for the possession to which she is entitled to and the omission thereof is fatal. The petition is liable to be rejected on that ground. In support thereof, he relied on a decision reported in Onkar Nath vs. Ved Vyas . The second contention he raised is that the finding of the Appellate Authority that the requirement of the landlady is absolute ; she can seek eviction of the tenant from any premises and the Court cannot direct the landlord/landlady to seek eviction from a paiticular building is no longer good law. She has to specify how the particular building which she seeks eviction is the building required for her business. This claim must be bona fide. The view of this court in Nagappa vs. Krishnasa , that the requirement of the landlord is absolute and unfettered is no longer good law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in MM Quasim vs. Monoharlal. The lower Appellate Tribunal did not consider whether the claim is bonafide or not. The requirement may be bonafide, but the claim also should be bona fide. This aspect was not considered. The case needs to be remanded for re-consideration.

( 5 ) SRI Surya Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that whether the requirement is bonafide or not is one of fact. The respondent is, admittedly, hiving her medical shop opposite to the demised premises. She is running the business for the purpose of running her business in that building. On the earlier occasion, the respondent obtained possession of a different building for residential purpose. While staying in that house, the respondent leased out a part at a different place. Therefore the claim and requirement of the respondent are bona fide. The learned controller did not co