This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 20-3-2002 passed in R.A.No.72 of 1997 by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.

2. The first petitioner is the landlord and the first respondent is the tenant. The landlord filed R.C.No.831 of 1994 on the file of the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, under Sections 10 (2) (iii) and 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short the Act) seeking eviction of the tenant in respect of the premises bearing No.4-1-613 situated at Troop Bazar, Hyderabad on the ground that the tenant committed acts of waste and that the premises is required for the personal occupation for the purpose of commencing business by the second son of the landlord. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition by order dated 17-1-1997. Aggrieved by the said order the landlord preferred an appeal in RANo.72 of 1997. During the pendency of the appeal the first tenant died and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 2 to 6 and the rent appellate Court dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 20-3-2002. Aggrieved by the said judgment this revision petition has been filed. During the pendency of the revision petition the landlord died and his legal representatives were brought on record as petitioners 2 to 5, who are his wife, two daughters and son. The fourth petitioner Jaffar Bin Ali is the second son. The elder son of the landlord is not brought on record, as he may not be entitled to any right in the subject matter of the schedule property.

3. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the said premises is required for the personal occupation of the landlord for the purpose of commencing business by his second son. Admittedly the petition filed under Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act does not specifically mention as to whether the said premises is required either for the purpose of carrying on the business which is carried on by his second son on the date of the petition or only for the purpose of commencing of business by the landlord but the averments of the eviction petition go to show that the second son of the landlord requires the said premises for the purpose of commencing business. Therefore, the petition is filed under Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) (b) of the Act. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship of the landlord and the tenant and the respondent is the tenant in respect of the said mulgi bearing No.A-1-613 situated at Troop Bazar.

4. It is stated in the eviction petition that the landlord is the owner of the double storied building bearing No.A-1-613, Troop Bazar, Hyderabad and the respondent is the tenant in respect of the mulgi bearing NoA-1-613 on a monthly rent of Rs. 350/- and originally it was leased out in 1975 and the monthly rent was enhanced from time to time. It is stated that the said premises is a non-residential premises but the tenant has fixed two show cases admeasuring 4 x 3 in the walls reducing the thickness of the walls damaging the premises and therefore, the tenant is liable to be evicted under Section 10 (2) (iii) of the Act for committing acts of waste. Originally the petition was filed stating that the second son of the landlord passed intermediate examination in the year 1993 and he got experience in the disposal of electrical goods i.e. purchasing and selling of tubes, fans and bulbs and the said mulgi is required for the purpose of carrying on the business by his second son and it is further stated that his son is not having any other vacant mulgi in the twin cities. Therefore, the double storied mulgi is bona fidely required to his son, who is residing with the landlord, for carrying on business. The eviction petition was filed on 30-12-1994. Thereafter, an application in IANo.176 of 1996, filed to amend the petition stating that the second son viz. Jaffar Bin Ali, requires the said premises, was allowed on 4