SISTLA RAMALAKSHMAMMA Vs. LAKSHMI GENERAL STORES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point that arises for determination in this revision by the landlord under section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, referred to here in after merely as ' the Act' is whether a landlord is entitled to evict the tenant, who has had his own house constructed in the year 1966, wherein he is carrying on the same business as the one in the tenanted house, on the ground " that the tenant has secured alternative building " within the meaning of that expression as occurring in section 10 (2) (v) of the Act.

(2.) As the Counsel, appearing on either side, submitted that there is no direct decision of this Court on this point, our learned brother A. V. Krishna Rao, J., being of the view that the point raised is of considerable importance, referred this matter to a division bench for decision. That is how this matter has come up before us. 2-A. The facts necessary for the disposal of this case lie, rather in a narrow compass.

(3.) The petitioner-landlord sought the eviction of the tenant, the respondent herein, through an application filed by her before the House Rent Controller, firstly, on the ground that the tenant committed acts of waste, which materially altered or diminished the value of the building, secondly, that there is a change in the mode of user of the building, thirdly, that the landlord bona fide required the premises for her own use, that is, for the purpose of starting medical practice by her husband and, lastly, on the ground that the tenant had secured alternative accommodation.