T. S. ANAND, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri T. S. Anand, the learned counsel representing the petitioner and sri V. L. N. G. K. Murthy, the learned counsel representing the first respondent. ( 2 ) FIRST respondent, who is landlord filed r. C. C. No. 5 of 1999 on the file of District munsif-Cum-Rent Control Tribunal, Tuni under Section 10 (3) of A. P. Buildings (Lease, rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short the Act ) as against the revision petitioner - tenant, who is first respondent in the said R. C. C. and Respondents 2 and 3 herein are respondents 2 and 3 in R. C. C. No. 5 of 1999. Respondents 2 and 3 are brothers and the landlord is the son of the 2nd respondent. It is stated that the petition schedule property is their joint family property and hence the landlord is one of the co-owners of the schedule property along with respondents 2 and 3. ( 3 ) THE averments in short made in rc. C. No. 5 of 1999 are as under:"the 1st respondent is a month to month tenant in the petition schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/- p. m. The first respondent is carrying on business under the name and style of Aruna fancy Corner in the schedule property. The 3rd respondent is carrying business in one of the shops belonging to the joint family, which is situated to the north of the petition schedule property. The father of the petitioner is going to retire in one or two years from the railways. The family of the petitioner is a trading family having experience in the business in General and Fancy goods. The petitioner is not interested in pursuing his further studies after intermediate, wanted to have a business at Tuni, where the petitioner is having a residential house. The petitioner is not in occupation of any non-residential building in Tuni. The petition schedule property is most suitable for business in General and Fancy goods. The petitioner has no other avocation hence, the petitioner is entitled to seek eviction of the 1st respondent from the petition schedule property as the same is bonafide required by the petitioner for his personal occupation for carrying on business in General and Fancy goods. The petitioner got issued a notice to 1st respondent who sent reply with false allegations. The petitioner has no other avocation hence, the petitioner is entitled to seek eviction of the 1st respondent from the petition schedule property as the same is bonafide required by the petitioner for his personal occupation for carrying on business in General and Fancy goods. The petitioner got issued a notice to 1st respondent who sent reply with false allegations. The daughters of Nagaraju relinquished these rights in the schedule property in pursuance of the oral family arrangements. Hence, the petition may be allowed for eviction of the 1st respondent from the petition schedule property as the same is required, bona fide for personal occupation of the petitioner for carrying business". ( 4 ) HENCE, it is clear that except the stand taken by the landlord that he requires the premises bona fidely for personal occupation, no other ground had been taken. Respondents 2 and 3 remained ex parte. The petitioner-tenant in the present revision denied the averments and pleaded in the counter as follows:"in this matter, respondents 2 and 3 remained ex parte, first respondent filed counter denying the petition averments. The fact that the first respondent is tenant under Uppala Nagaraju is admitted. The fact that the first respondent is carrying on business under the name and style of Aruna fancy corner is also admitted. The 1st respondent contends, the petitioner branch is not a trading family. The petitioner has no desire to carry on business. The 3rd respondent is behind the present litigation from the time of petitioners, grand father Nagaraju, nagaraju and after his death, the 3rd respondent tried their best to evict the 1st respondent from the schedule premises. Nagaraju, grandfather of petitioner filed H. R. CO. P. 2 of 1970 on the file of this Court. It went up to the high Court and was dismissed. Again, nagaraju filed R. C. C. No. 2 of 79, which was allowed in trial Court. The appeal filed by the 1st respondent R. C. A. No. 25 of 80 was allowed. Revision petition filed by Nagaraju C. R. P. No. 3070/82 on the file of Honourable high Court was dismissed on20-6-1986. All these days, 3rd respondent is trying to evict the 1st respondent so that competition will be removed for his business. Hence, the petition is not a bonafide one and therefore, liable to be dismissed. Revision petition filed by Nagaraju C. R. P. No. 3070/82 on the file of Honourable high Court was dismissed on20-6-1986. All these days, 3rd respondent is trying to evict the 1st respondent so that competition will be removed for his business. Hence, the petition is not a bonafide one and therefore, liable to be dismissed. The 1st respondent is a small merchant carrying on business in general and Fancy goods since about 30 years. He gained good will, and improved his business, if he is evicted he will be ruined. His health also suffered. The loss that will be caused to the 1st respondent by eviction will be more serious then the loss likely to be caused by refusal to grant eviction, even if the request is true. The petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties that is the daughters of Uppala Nagaraju. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed". ( 5 ) BEFORE the learned Rent Controller, p. W. 1 and R. W. 1 were examined and exs. A-1 to A-3 and Exs, B-1 to B-5 were marked. The learned Rent Controller, after framing the points for consideration and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the R. C. C. and ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant filed R. C. A. No. 23 of 1999 on the file of Rent control Appellate Tribunal cum principal senior Civil Judge, Kakinada and the appellate authority dismissed the said appeal and aggrieved thereby, the tenant preferred the present Civil Revision petition under section 22 of the Act. ( 6 ) SRI T. S. Anand, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioner-tenant raised the only contention that it is not in dispute that the landlord is now employed and hence the ground of bona fide personal requirement is not available to the landlord and this fact is brought to the notice of this court by way of subsequent events by filing an affidavit and hence the landlord has to be non-suited on this ground alone. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of the court the order passed in CM. P. No. 19952 of 2003, where the amendment of the counter in R. C. C. had been allowed by an order dated 10-9-2003. Strong reliance was placed on the case reported in Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of the court the order passed in CM. P. No. 19952 of 2003, where the amendment of the counter in R. C. C. had been allowed by an order dated 10-9-2003. Strong reliance was placed on the case reported in Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram. ( 7 ) PER contra Sri V. L. N. G. K. Murthy, the learned counsel representing first respondent-landlord submitted that the fact that merely because the landlord at present is employed itself cannot be a ground to non- suit him since the ground as was available on the date of eviction petition alone may have to be taken into consideration. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on the case reported in Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Shrivastava in this regard. The learned counsel also had pointed out that Uppala Narayana Swamy, the father of the landlord, who is 2nd respondent filed an independent counter affidavit by specifically taking a stand that he wants to commence the business along with his son and hence this fact also can be taken into consideration. The learned counsel also submitted that there is no dispute that the landlord is one of the co-owners or coparceners and since the other sharers in the property had taken no objection, there cannot be any protest on the ground that the other co-owners are not impleaded as parties. The learned counsel submitted that at any rate Respondents 2 and 3 were already on record. The learned counsel also brought to my notice the contents of the reply affidavit in this regard. ( 8 ) AFTER hearing both the counsel at length, i have perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record. ( 9 ) THE landlord himself was examined as p. W. 1 and one Majjeti Jaya Prakash was examined as R. W. 1. Exs, A-1 to A-3 and exs. B-1 to B-5 were marked on behalf of respective parties. Both the Courts had discussed the oral and documentary evidence at length and had arrived at a conclusion that the landlord is entitled for the relief of eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement. The matter does not stop there. Exs, A-1 to A-3 and exs. B-1 to B-5 were marked on behalf of respective parties. Both the Courts had discussed the oral and documentary evidence at length and had arrived at a conclusion that the landlord is entitled for the relief of eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement. The matter does not stop there. At the revisional stage, C. M. P. No. 19952 of 2003 was filed for the relief to amend the counter in R. C. C. No. 5 of 1992 by adding paragraphs 7 (a) to (c) which read as hereunder. "at the time of filing the eviction petition in the year 1992 the age of the respondent was 20 years. In the eviction petition it is stated that the petitioners father was working in the Railways, that he is going to retire in one or two years, that the petitioner passed intermediate, that he is not interested in prosecuting his further studies as the petitioner s family is a trading family since the time of his grandfather and he wanted to carry on business at Tuni where he is having a residential house. The respondents father never resided at Tuni after his retirement. He is residing in his mother-in laws house in kothapalli village, W. G. Dist. The respondent prosecuted his studies and passed I. C. W. A. He worked in several companies including Suryalatha spinning Mills, Secunderabad. At present he is working on monthly salary of about Rs. 10,000/ -. Whatever might be the intention of the respondent at the time of filing the eviction petition in the year 1992, the requirement of the respondent ceased to exist as on today. The respondent cannot now contend that if I am evicted from the petition schedule premises, he will resign his job and carry on business in General and Fancy goods at Tuni, in the petition schedule premises. " ( 10 ) A counter affidavit and reply affidavit are also filed. Uppala Narayanaswamy, the 2nd respondent, the father of the landlord also filed an independent counter affidavit and paragraph 2 of the same reads as under:"i perused the affidavit filed by the petitioner herein and understood the contents of the affidavit and I deny the allegation that after my retirement, i am residing at my mother-in- law s house and not in Tuni. It is submitted that I am getting a pension of rs. It is submitted that I am getting a pension of rs. 5,900/ -. I am intending to start our traditional business, i. e. General and fancy goods by joining my son, the respondent. It is submitted that I am spending my retired life at Tuni only. It is submitted that the subsequently events do not eclipse the need propounded by the respondent as I have retired from my service and intending to start the business by joining the respondent. " ( 11 ) IT is no doubt true that narayanaswamy, the 2nd respondent, the father of the landlord, was set ex parte and the counsel for the revision petitioner had raised an objection that this counter affidavit cannot be looked into at all since the party was set ex parte. It is pertinent to note that it is a matter where the subsequent events are being brought on record at the revisional stage. In that context, in the light of the stand taken by the tenant, the father of the landlord who is also interested in the property, had chosen to file an independent counter affidavit. Whatever may be the value that can be attached, it cannot be said that such material cannot be looked into at all for the purpose of appreciating the subsequent events. This court need not dwell any further on this question. From the facts and the subsequent events which are brought to the notice of this court, the fact that the landlord at present is employed elsewhere is not denied and no doubt, at present the stand taken is that the father of the landlord intends to commence the business. It is needless to say that these are all factual aspects, originaliy not supported by any pleading since the pleadings are now introduced by an amendment to the counter and hence I am of the considered opinion that these are all aspects, which may have to be established by the respective parties by letting in appropriate evidence in this regard. It is needless to say that these are all factual aspects, originaliy not supported by any pleading since the pleadings are now introduced by an amendment to the counter and hence I am of the considered opinion that these are all aspects, which may have to be established by the respective parties by letting in appropriate evidence in this regard. In Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram (1 supra), it was held by the Apex court that"when subsequent events are pleaded in the course of an appeal or proceedings of revision, the Court may, having regard to the nature of the allegations of fact on which the plea is based, permit evidence to be adduced by means of affidavits as envisaged in Rule 1 of order 19, C. P. C. The Court may also treat any affidavit filed in support of the pleadings itself as one under the said provision and call upon the opposite side to traverse it. The Court, if it finds that having regard to the nature of the allegations, it is necessary to record oral evidence tested by oral cross-examination, may have recourse to that procedure. It may record the evidence itself or remit the matter for an enquiry and evidence. All these depend upon the factual and situational differences characterizing a particular case and the nature of the plea raised. There can be no hard and fast rule governing the matter. The procedure is not to be burdened with technicalities. "in Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Shrivastava (2 supra) while dealing with the eviction on the ground of bona fide need of landlord under U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, rent and Eviction) Act (13 of 1972), the Apex court held that"the crucial date for deciding as to the bona fides of the requirement of the landlord is the date of his application for eviction. The antecedent days may perhaps have utility for him to reach the said crucial date of consideration. If every subsequent development during the post petition period is to be taken into account for judging the bona fides of the requirement pleaded by the landlord there would perhaps be no end so long as the unfortunate situation in our litigative slow process system subsists. If every subsequent development during the post petition period is to be taken into account for judging the bona fides of the requirement pleaded by the landlord there would perhaps be no end so long as the unfortunate situation in our litigative slow process system subsists. The subsequent events to overshadow the genuineness of the need must be of such nature and of such a dimension that the need propounded by the petitioning party should have been completely eclipsed by such subsequent events. It is pernicious, and unjust to shut the door before an applicant just on the eve of his reaching the finale, after passing through all the previous levels of the litigation, merely on the ground that certain developments occurred pendente lite, because the opposite party succeeded in prolonging the matter for such unduly long period. " ( 12 ) HERE is a peculiar case where the son, who is a landlord, filed eviction petition on the ground of bona fide personal requirement. It is pertinent to note that the father also was impleaded as second respondent, who was set ex parte. It is no doubt true that the additional facts put forth by the landlord were not pleaded and no evidence was let in since there was no occasion for the landlord at the appropriate time, especially in the light of the fact that the amendment made by the landlord is definitely a subsequent event. ( 13 ) IN view of the same and also in view of the fact that the tenant had acquired yet other premises in the name of the daughter- in-law, I am of the view that it is just to remit the matter back to the appellate authority to afford opportunity to both the parties to let in evidence on the additional facts constituting the subsequent events by both the parties and decide the matter afresh within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ( 14 ) ACCORDINGLY, this revision is allowed and the order under revision is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court below as stated above. No costs.