( 1 ) THIS revision arises out of the order dated 24-4-2000 in R. A. No. 387 of 1996 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judge, City small Causes Court, Hyderabad, allowing the said appeal preferred by the landlord against the dismissal of R. C. No. 819 of 1994 filed by him seeking eviction of the revision petitioners from the premises bearing No. 1-8-44/17, Chikkadpally, hyderabad, within the boundaries mentioned in the schedule appended to the r. C. , hereinafter called the suit property. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT filed the R. C. , against the revision petitioners seeking their eviction from the suit property alleging that they have taken the suit property on lease on a monthly rent of Rs. 250/-, exclusive of electricity and property tax, payable on or before 5th day of each succeeding month, and that he, who is running a Silver Articles shop in a rented narrow premises bearing no. 1-8-499/13/1 in a bye-lane of chikkadapally, is finding it difficult to canny on business therein and wants to carry on the business in suit property, and also on the ground that revision petitioner secured alternative premises for their business. Revision petitioners contested the petition on the ground that the requirement of the respondent of the suit property for his business is not bona fide and that its carrying on business at several premises as a State wide Co-operative Society in another building in the same city does not entitle the respondent seeking their eviction from the suit property, ( 3 ) IN support of his case the respondent examined himself as P. W. 1, but did not adduce any documentary evidence. In support of their case, revision petitioners examined one witness as R. W. 1 and exs. B-1 to B-3 were marked. The learned rent Controller dismissed the R. C, holding against the respondent on both grounds. The learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes court, found in favour of respondent and ordered eviction of the revision petitioners on the ground of his bona fide requirement while holding against him on the second ground of revision petitioners securing an alternative accommodation. Hence this revision by the tenants. The learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes court, found in favour of respondent and ordered eviction of the revision petitioners on the ground of his bona fide requirement while holding against him on the second ground of revision petitioners securing an alternative accommodation. Hence this revision by the tenants. ( 4 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners is that the learned Chief Judge was in error in holding that the claim of the respondent is bona fide, ignoring the fact that he earlier sought eviction of revision petitioners on the ground that the suit property is required for the business of his brother-in-law and that the respondent is seeking eviction of the revision petitioners under an oblique motive and so his requirement of the suit property is not bona fide. It is his contention that since the respondent is in occupation of a building and is carrying on business in another building, as per Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) he is not entitled to seek eviction of the revision petitioners from the suit property. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that since the respondent is carrying on business in the rented premises and since his family and business have grown up from the date of Ex. B-2, which is of year 1988, his requirement of the suit property cannot be said to be not bona fide. So, the learned appellate authority ordering eviction of the revision petitioners cannot be found fault with. ( 5 ) THE learned Chief Judge in his order under revision observed that since the petition is filed in 1994, respondent stating in Ex. B-2 in 1998 when his sons were young, that he wants to carry on business in the suit property with the help of k. Narsimloo, whom he is fostering, and he is now stating that he wants to carry on business with the assistance of his grown up son, cannot be said to be an inconsistent stand, and that the requirement of the respondent of the suit property cannot but be said to be bona fide. Ex. B-2 is of the year 1988. i. e. , 13 years back. Subsequent event of sons of respondent growing up and wanting to join him in business can be taken note of. Ex. B-2 is of the year 1988. i. e. , 13 years back. Subsequent event of sons of respondent growing up and wanting to join him in business can be taken note of. A person carrying on business in a small area, when his children have grown up and want to assist him, and when more convenient and spacious accommodation belonging to him is available, wanting to shift to that premises, such requirement cannot be said to be not bona fide. Therefore, I find no grounds to interfere with the finding of the learned chief Judge that the requirement of the suit property by the respondent is bona fide. ( 6 ) I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners that since the respondent is in occupation of a rented premises, by virtue of the embargo in section 10 (3) (a) (iii), he is not entitled to seek possession of the suit property, which is of his own. A Full Bench of this Court in M/s. Vijaya Laxmi Printing Press v. K. Shankar by majority held that the landlord who is only a statuary tenant is not debarred from seeking possession of his own non-residential building without his first vacating the non-residential premises in his occupation as a tenant. Respondent admittedly is carrying on business in a rented premises which is smaller than the suit property which is his own. So, his being in possession of a rented premises for his business, when his intention to shift into the suit property, which is his own, is bona fide is not a ground to non-suit him. The contention of the respondent that the premises in which he is presently carrying on business as a tenant is of the area 17 x 9 is not denied or disputed by revision petitioners. The dimensions of the suit property are 13. 1 x 24. 6 , which is bigger in area than the room in which the respondent is carrying on business as a tenant. So, respondent, whose family and business have grown, wanting to shift his business to his own premises, which is much bigger cannot but be said to be bona fide. When he is having his own premises, which is more spacious and convenient, he cannot be expected to carry on business in a small rented premises. So, respondent, whose family and business have grown, wanting to shift his business to his own premises, which is much bigger cannot but be said to be bona fide. When he is having his own premises, which is more spacious and convenient, he cannot be expected to carry on business in a small rented premises. ( 7 ) FOR the above reasons I find no grounds to interfere with the order under revision holding that the respondent is entitled to seek eviction of the revision petitioners on the ground of his bona fide requirement. ( 8 ) THEREFORE, the C. R. P. is dismissed with costs. Revision petitioners are granted time till the end of April 2002 for vacating the suit property.