K PARASURAMAIAH Vs. POKURL LAKSHMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arise for determination in this case is one under Sec. 10 (3) (c) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act, which is as follows :

(2.) The Rent Controller on an enquiry held that the landlady does not require the additional accommodation bona fide ; she therefore cannot ask for the eviction of the tenant . The Rent Controller also found that the advantage which the landlady would gain is outweighed by the hardship that would be caused to the tenant . Consequently the petition was dismissed.

(3.) Aggrieved by that decision the landlady preferred an appeal before the Subordinate Judge disagreeing with the conclusion of the Rent Controller held that Sec. 10 (3) (c) is applicable to the case and that the advantage which the landlady gets because of eviction outweighs the hardship which the tenant is likely to suffer. He also held that the landlady in view of the increase in the number of members of her family bona fide requires the additional accommodation. It is against this order that the present revision petition was filed . When the matter was placed before our learned brother, the following two decisions were cited before him : (a) Appalaraju v. Samburatnamurthy, (1961) 2 Andh WR 235, (b) (1962) 1 Andh WR 205. In view of the conflict in the construction of Section 10 (3) (c) the learned Judge thought that the conflict between the two decisions should be resolved by a Division Bench, and that is how the revision has come before us.