BALAIAH Vs. LACHAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The problem which this revision petition poses is:

(2.) The respondent-landlord filed a petition under section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease and Rent 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 reconstruction. That petition was resisted by the tenant.

(3.) The Rent Controller, after 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 lanlord and that the building requires reconstruction Eviction was however directed only on the first ground. The appellate authority, on appeal by the tenant, agreed with the view the Rent Controller and held that the landlord requires the building for las own use and thought in that view that it is unnecessary to take any undertaking from the landlord to offter the building after its reconstruction to the tenant.