The requirement of an undivided major son of a joint Hindu family for carrying on his business can be considered as the requirement of the father-cum-manager of the joint Hindu family for the purpose of eviction under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960.

EKBOTE, J. :- The problem which this revision petition poses is :

"Whether a father-cum-manager of a joint Hindu family, who is in possession of a non-residential building, cannot ask for eviction Wider S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act 1960, of a tenant from another non-residential building belonging to the family, on the ground that his undivided major son requires it for carrying on his business ?"

It arises in the following circumstances.

2. The respondent-landlord filed a petition under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the Act) against the petitioner-tenant on two grounds, firstly that his son who had attained majority intends to start a new business and secondly, that the building requires re-construction. That petition was resisted by the tenant.

3. The Rent Controller, after the enquiry, directed the eviction of the tenant holding that the requirement of the undivided son would be deemed to be the personal requirement of the landlord and that the building requires re-construction. Eviction was however, directed only on the first ground.

4. The Appellate authority, on appeal by the tenant, agreed with the view of the Rent Controller and held that the landlord requires the building for his own use and thought in that view that it is unnecessary to take any undertaking from the landlord to offer the building after its re-construction to the tenant.

5. The tenant preferred a revision petition to this Court. When it came before our learned brother, Venkatesam, J. in view of the importance of the above question, the learned Judge referred the case to a Bench and that is how the matter is before us.

6. In order to find out an effective answer to the problem thus posed it is necessary to read S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act which is in the following terms :

"10(1). A tenant shall not be evicted whether in execution of a decree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisions of this section or Ss. 12 and 13.

3(a) A landlord may subject to the provisions of cl. (d) apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building :

(iii) 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 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 :"

7. On a closer examination of this provision it would appear that in order to attract the same the following four things must exist :

(1) It must be any other non-residential building."

(2) The landlord is not occupying a non-residential building (in the city, town or village) which is his own or to the possession of which he is entitled.

(3) He requires it for the purpose of a business which he is carrying on or which he bona fide proposes to commence, and

(4) his claim is bona fide (sub-cl. 3(e)).

8. In the instant case there is no dispute that the building in question comes within the meaning of "any other non-residential building" and that the claim of the landlord has been found to be bona fide by both the Courts below. Thus the first and the last requirements are not in controversy.

9. Now in regard to the third requirement what is necessary to find out is whether the landlord requires the building "for the purpose of a business which he is calling on or which the landlord bona fide proposes to commence." It seems now to be beyond any doubt that these expressions need not necessarily be confined to the physical requirement of the landlord himself. These and similar other expressions ought to be liberally construed and not in a narrow way. They are susceptible of a wide meanin