T SATYAMMA Vs. I SUSHEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is the revision petitioner. The rent controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on the ground that the suit premises is required for the residence of the family of the landlady as she wanted to use the ground floor as godown for keeping the beedi leaves. It can be noted that the respondent's family is carrying on business in the manufacture of beedies. The order of eviction was confirmed by the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, in appeal.

(2.) Sri M. Surya Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised the following points for consideration. His first contention is that the landlord could seek eviction of the tenant for additional accommodation for which he is using the premises in his occupation. According to him, in the instant case there is violation of Sec. 10 (3) (c) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings Lease, Rent and eviction) Control Act, 1960.

(3.) The learned counsel further contended that no residential building could be converted into a non-residential building except with permission in writing of the controller under Sec. 18 of the Act. Therefore, the respondent landlady ought not to have filed the eviction petition on the ground that the ground floor is required for a business purpose.