CHILAKALA MANIKYA RAO Vs. DESU RAMA SUBBARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant has preferred this revision against his eviction. The landlord filed a petition against him before the Rent Controller, Narasaraopet, for eviction from the suit premises on the ground that his major undivided son wants to start a medical shop in that premises. The petitioner opposed that petition contending that the respondent was already in possession of another premises adjacent to the one in question. Overruling his objection, the Rent Controller ordered his eviction on the ground that the landlord needs the premises bona fide fcr his son to start the business. The appeal preferred by the tenant against that order was also dismissed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Narasaraopet, confirming the order of eviction.

(2.) It transpires from the evidence that the respondent and his son D. S. Prasad are joint and Prasad is major. In addition, the respondent has some other shops but leased them out. Immediately next to the petition schedule shop, is the shop of the respondent wherein he is carrying on business in ayurvedic drugs. His son was given a licence for storting business in drugs and he wants to start that business in the suit premises.

(3.) It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the respon- pent owns some other shops which he has let out ano also since he is carrying on business in ayurvedic drugs in the adjoining shop, he is not entitled to get possession of the suit premises. For this purpose he has relied upon section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction") Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the Act), and also the decisions of single Judge in Vemana Veerabhadradu v. Kancherla Rama Rao, Thanappa v. Govindaswamy, and Ramaswami Naidu v. Venkatesworlu.