- (1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the revision petition of the appellant against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Guntur, whereby he affirmed the order of the Rent Controller, Guntur, directing the eviction of the appellant from the disputed shop-room.
(2.) The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are repectively the father and son. The respondents filed a petition under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', before the Rent Controller, Guntur, praying for an order of eviction against the appellant from the disputed shop-room on the ground that it was bona fide required for the respondent No. 2, who had passed the B. Com. examination, and would start a business in readymade garments in the disputed shop-room. The petition was contested by the appellant. It was inter alia denied by the appellant that the shop-room was bona fide required by the respondents as alleged.
(3.) The learned Rent Controller after considering the evidence adduced by the parties passed the eviction order against the appellant holding, inter alia, as follows : "Thus, after careful scrutiny of the entire evidence I had no two minds in coming to the conclusion that the petitioners required the suit shop for their personal occupation, namely, for the business of P.W. 2. I find there is an element of need and it is a bona fide one and not actuated by any oblique motive. I find there is absolute necessity for P.W. 2 to have his business in the suit shop. Thus, I find the petitioners had brought home the point in their favour. I find that there are valid grounds to order eviction of the respondent.";