It was inter alia denied by the appellant that the shop room was bona fide required by the respondents as alleged.
The respondents filed a petition under section 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.
As stated already, the High Court dismissed the revision petition.
Hence, this appeal by special leave.
The appellant preferred a revision petition under section 21 of the Act before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.2.
The petition was companytested by the appel lant.
1984 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Rent Controller, the appellants preferred an appeal to the Subor dinate Judge, Guntur, who, however, affirmed the findings of the learned Rent companytroller and dismissed the appeal.
1 and 2 are respectively the father and son.
examination, and would start a business in readymade garments in the disputed shoproom.
2714 of 1984.
2053 of 1981.
Govind Mukhoty, P.K. Gupta and K.V. Upendra Gupta for the Respondents.
V.S.N.Chari for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUTT, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dis missing 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 shoproom.
The respondents Nos.
