GARAPATI VENKATA SITARAMACHANDRA PRASAD Vs. NAYANI CHALAPATHI RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord of the suit premises is the petitioner before me. He owns a building which is being used for running a lodge in the first and second floors. The ground floor is being used as shops by various other tenants. The landlord filed the present petition for eviction of the tenant who is running a lodging business in the first and second floors on the ground that not only he wants the two floors for his residential purposes but a!so for running the business of a lodge. The landlord also made allegations of waste by the tenant. The plea of the tenant was that the waste of the building was not due to any act of the tenant, and that the personal occupation of the two floors claimed by the landlord is not at all bona fide because the landlord stays with his mother.

(2.) The Rent Controller as well as the lower appellate nuthority dismissed the eviction petition. Hence this revision.

(3.) Mr P. Ramachandra Reddy, the learned Advocate General appearing for the petitioner, contends that the landlord required the suit premises for two purposes, viz.. for his residential purpose and also for the non-residential purpose of running a lodging house. The landlord wanted to run the business of a lodge for the simple reason that the first and second floors are so constructed that it would be convenient to run a lodging business. Both the Courts, have como to the conclusion that the landlord does not have any other building of his own, and that he is residing along with his mother in another building belonging to her. Therefore, in these circumstances, the lower Court ought to have applied firstly the provisions of section 10(3) (a) (i) which provides.