B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) TENANT is the revision-petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition arising under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and eviction) Control Act, 1960. Both the Tribunals below have ordered eviction on the ground that the landlady requires the shop premises bona fide for self-occupation. I will state the facts in so far as they are relevant for the present purpose.

( 2 ) THE eviction petition was filed in 1976 with the averments that the tenant, who has been occupying the shop in question for the last eight years, did not vacate the same inspite of a demand to that effect : and that she wants this shop and the adjacent shop in occupation of another tenant, for her own occupation for starting a business by her son. When a notice was served upon the tenant calling upon him to vacate the premises, he came forward with false contentions. The tenant denied the bona fide nature of the personal requirement alleged by the landlady. He stated that she does not require the premises for the purpose averred by her and that, it is only a ruse to get him evicted.

( 3 ) THE only question that arose for consideration before both the tribunals was, whether the requirement is true. The learned Rent Controller held that though in the notice issued before the institution of these proceedings, and also in the petition, the particular nature of the business proposed to be started by the landlady s son is not specified, still it cannot be said that her requirement is not bona fide, for the reason that (i) the landlady and her son belong to a business community ; (ii) for the last four months, i. e. , from about March 1977, P. W-2 (son of the landlady) has been doing mandi business in a rented premises ; and (iii) that, though no actual preparations were made for starting the business by the time of the filing of the petition, still that cannot be a ground for negativing the landlady s plea, inasmuch as they are admittedly possessed of properties and are capable of raising necessary funds for starting a business. The appellate authority generally agreed with the reasoning of the Rent Controller.

( 4 ) IN this Civil Revision Petition, Sri R. V. Subba rao, the learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner, contended that in the light of the clear provisions of law and the vague and uncertain allegations made by the landlady and her son, the Tribunals below were in error in entertaining the petition or ordering it. He submitted that neither in the notice issued before the institution of the eviction petition, nor in the eviction petition, nor in the chief-examination of the landlady has she specified the particular business which she proposed to commence in this shop premises and that, the very petition filed by the landlady is not in conformity with the provisions of law.

( 5 ) I find sufficient force in the contention of the learned counsel, though both the Tribunals below have not acceded to this contention. Section 10 (3) of the Act, in so far as it is relevant for the present purpose, reads as follows : "10 (3) (a) : A landlord may, subject to the provisio suof clause (d), apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building (i) xx xx xx (ii) xx xx xx (iii) xx xx xx (iv) 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 a 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" now, in this case, the landlady did not apply for eviction on the ground that she requires the premises for the purpose of a business which she is carrying on, on the date of the application. Therefore, sub-clause (a) in clause (i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document