1. 1. The present revision is preferred by the legal heirs of landlady who were arrayed as respondents in R.A.No. 268 of 2001.

2. 2. The landlady had filed RC No. 66 of 1998 against the respondent/tenant herein for eviction on the ground that she requires the suit premises for her fourth son who is a doctor and who was arrayed as petitioner No.6 in RC. The requirement pleaded is one for additional accommodation under Section 10 (3) (c) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter called "the Act"). The landlady died pending RC and her husband and sons and daughters were brought on record as legal representatives as respondents 2 to 13 in RC. The building in which the schedule premises is situate comprises four mulgies bearing Nos. 1-8-32/61/22/1 to 4. The schedule premises in question bears municipal No. 1-8-32/61/22/2 and the monthly rent is Rs.550/-. The respondent/tenant is carrying on business of automobile batteries and the dimensions of the suit premises are approximately 10 feet x 12 feet. The landlady alleged that her fourth son who is the 6th petitioner in RC and his wife are both doctors and they are presently carrying on their clinic in a mulgi adjacent to the suit premises. The said mulgi which is used as a clinic has dimensions of 10 feet x 12 feet and the same is inadequate and insufficient for professional need of the 6th petitioner and his wife and therefore the suit mulgi is required by them so that the partition wall in between the two mulgies can be removed and both the said doctors have appropriate clinics and would be able to run their consultations independently.

3. 3. The tenant filed a counter contending that the landlady has five mulgies and not four mulgies as alleged and all of them are fitted with shutters and the dimensions of suit mulgi are 10 feet x 20 feet similar to the adjacent mulgi wherein the 6th petitioner and his wife are carrying on their clinic. He also contended that the said existing accommodation is sufficient for the 6th petitioner and his wife and there is a cellar portion also which is vacant and part of the 4th floor is also vacant. He further alleged that one of the sons of the landlady has recently started business in automobile batteries and with a view to see that there is no competition for him, the present requirement is pleaded which is neither bona fide nor genuine.

4. 4. During trial, on behalf of the landlady, P.W.1 who is the husband of the landlady was examined, besides P.W.2 who is the 6th petitioner and for whose requirement the present proceedings were instituted. PWs 3 to 5 are other three witnesses who were examined as independent witnesses who spoke of the location of the suit mulgi and also the alleged 5th mulgi is not a mulgi but is actually is an entrance to cellar portion which was fitted with a shutter. Exs.P1 to P12 were also marked which

comprise affidavits, agreements, memo of understanding, photographs, exchange of legal notices and sanction plan and photographs. On the tenant's side, he examined himself as R.W.1 and also

R.W.2 who is an independent witness to speak of water logging in the locality and R.W.3 is another independent witness to speak of various other tenants in the building. Exs.R1 to R8 were marked on his behalf, which are visiting card and photographs with negatives. C.W.1 is the advocate commissioner who has physically inspected the building where the suit mulgi is situate and he has submitted his report- Ex.C6 together with notices-Exs.C1 to C3 and photographs -Exs.C4 and C5. The summons taken out to R.Ws. 2 and 3 were marked as Exs.X1 and X2.

1. 5. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Rent Controller upheld the additional accommodation pleaded by the landlady and directed eviction of the tenant. Aggrieved thereby, the tenant preferred an appeal before the lower appellate court being RA No. 268 of 2001 which has been allowed under the impugned order dated 23.9.2005. Hence t