On the ground of requirement of additional space for the grocery shop, the respondent sought the eviction of the appellant.
It would appear that the respondent has since changed PG NO 436 over his business to retail sale of liquor.
In the said building the respondent was running a grocery shop in the ground floor and residing in the second and third floors subsequently companystructed by him.
In the appeal preferred by the respondent, the Chief Judge, City Small Cause Court, Hyderabad, took a different view of the matter and held that even though the leased premises had a separate municipal door number it can be treated as forming part of the building in the respondents occupation because both the buildings are owned by the second respondent and besides the two buildings are separated only by a single wall.
A civil revision filed by the appellant to the High Court did number meet with success and hence the appellant has preferred this appeal.
The Rent Controller held that the respondent was number entitled to an order of eviction either under Section 19 3 a iii or Section 10 3 c because the leased premises was a separate building and did number form part of the building in which the respondent was carrying on his business.
Originally, a row of buildings companyprised in door numbers 1 1 248 to 1 1 251 were owned by one R. Kistiyah and after him by one Rambai.
1 1 250 was owned by an advocate by name Sri S. Sitaram Rao.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.10.1977 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in C .
1/1/249.
250 of 1977 .
537 of 1978.
For reaching such a companyclusion, the Appellate Authority followed the ratio laid down in Balaiah v. Lachaiah, AIR 1965 A.P. As the Appellate Authority further found that the requirement of additional space by the respondent was a bona fide one, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and ordered the eviction of the appellant.
P. Rao, K. Ram Kumar and Mrs. Janki Ramachandran for the Appellant .
The appellant is running a pan shop and a hire cycle shop in the front room of the premises and residing in the rear portion.
Besides the leased premises, the respondent owns the adjoining building bearing No.
1 1 250 Chikkadpalli, Hyderabad.
S. Nambiar and B. Parthasarthi for the Respondent.
The Judgment ot the Court was delivered by NATARAJAN, J. This appeal by special leave directed against a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court lies within a narrow companypass.
The respondent landlord filed a petition under Section 10 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1960 for short the Act to seek the eviction of the tenant appellant from premises bearing No.
