GANGARAM Vs. N SHANKAR REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J:- This appeal by special leave directed against a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court lies within a narrow compass.

(2.) Though the proceedings before the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority were conducted on the footing that the respondent was entitled to seek the appellant' s eviction under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) as well asunder S. 10(3)(c), it was conceded before us by Mr. Nambiar, learned counsel for the respondent that the tenant's eviction was sought for only under S. 10(3)(c) viz. requirement of additional space for the respondent's business. In such circumstances the only factor for determination is whether the respondent can seek the appellant's eviction from the tenanted building on the ground he requires additional accommodation for his business.

(3.) Before we proceed to deal with the question, it is necessary to State a few facts. Originally, a row of buildings comprised in door numbers 1- 1-248 to 1- 1-251 were owned by one B. Kistiyah and after him by one Rambai. The said Rambai sold the buildings in the row to different persons. The respondent and his brother were two of such purchasers and they purchased premises No. 1-1-248 and 1-1-249. Subsequently, in a partition between them, premises No. 1-1-249 was allotted to the respondent and premises No. 1-1-248 was allotted to his brother. After the partition was effected, the respondent constructed two storeys over his building by erecting concrete pillars on both sides of his building. At that time, the suit premises bearing No. 1- 1-250 was owned by an advocate by name Sri S. Sitaram Rao. When the concrete pillars were erected, Sitaram Rao complained of encroachment by the respondent and eventually, the dispute was resolved by the respondent himself purchasing Sitaram Rao's house viz. No. 1-1-250. After constructing the two floors, the respondent shifted his residence to those floors and utilised the entire ground floor for his business. The appellant who was a tenant of the suit, premises even before the respondent purchased it attorned his tenancy to the respondent.