O R D E R The C.R.P. is filed by the tenant aggrieved by the reversing order made in R.A.No.355/98 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, reversing the order made in R.C.No.337/96 on the file of III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. In R.C.No.337/96 the evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1 was recorded and Ex.P.1, Ex.P. 1 (a), Ex.P1(b) and Ex.R.1 were marked. The only ground on which eviction was sought for, is additional accommodation. 2. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner Sri Basit Ali made the following submissions :- The learned Counsel would contend that the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority on facts cannot be sustained in the light of the view expressed in GANGARAM V. SHANKAR REDDY (1). The learned Counsel also made yet another submission that as per the proviso a finding relating to comparative hardship to be recorded in the case of a ground of additional accommodation and this was not done and hence, the order of the Appellate Authority suffers from legal infirmity. The learned Counsel placed reliance on certain decisions. 3. Per contra, Sri Sharat Kumar, the learned Counsel representing respondents-landlords made the following submissions:- The learned Counsel would submit that there should be a plea in relation thereto and in the absence of the plea, the consideration or non-consideration of comparative hardship would not arise at all. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority and would contend that when once the bona fide requirement is established, the burden on the part of the landlord had been discharged and it is for the tenant to specifically plead the ground of undue hardship at least in the counter and some evidence should have been placed before the Court. The learned Counsel placed strong reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court PARASURAMAIAH V. LAKSHMAMMA (2). The learned Counsel also placed reliance on certain other decisions to substantiate his contentions. 4. The learned Counsel placed strong reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court PARASURAMAIAH V. LAKSHMAMMA (2). The learned Counsel also placed reliance on certain other decisions to substantiate his contentions. 4. Section 10(3)(c) of the A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 along with proviso reads as hereunder:- “a landlord who is occupying only a part of a building, whether residential or non-residential, may, notwithstanding anything in clause (a), apply to the Controller for an order directing any tenant occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part of the building to put the landlord in possession thereof, if he requires additional accommodation for residential purpose or for the purpose of a business which he is carrying on, as the case may be.” Provided that, in the case of an application under (c), the Controller shall reject the application if he is satisfied that the hardship which may be caused to the tenant by granting will outweigh the advantage to landlord; Provided further that the Controller may give the tenant a reasonable time for putting the landlord in possession of the building and may extent such time so as not to exceed three months in the aggregate. 5. It is no doubt true that in the counter no such specific plea relating to either undue hardship or comparative hardship had been pleaded by the tenant. Both the Counsel placed reliance on the under- noted decisions :- SONA OPTICS v. SHYAM SUNDERBHARGAVA(3); LINGA NAGENDER RAO (DIED) BY LRs. V. C.K.YESOVARDHAN(4) Y.RAMAKRISHNA RAO v. M.SESHADRI SASTRY(5) and TAMARIND MERCHANTS ASSN. V. RAGHAVAIAH SON & CO.(6). It is no doubt true that always it would be desirable and suggestable even on the part of the tenant to raise a plea in this regard whenever the landlord files eviction petition on the ground of additional accommodation. But, however, on a careful reading of the proviso, it appears to be the statutory requirement while ordering eviction on the ground of additional accommodation. On the other relevant facts, this Court is not inclined to express any opinion. The Appellate Authority observed “the Advocate for the tenant - respondent argued that the demised premises had been demolished and major portion of the property had been acquired by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad for the purpose of road widening. The accommodation now available is only for 10 to 15 square yards. The Appellate Authority observed “the Advocate for the tenant - respondent argued that the demised premises had been demolished and major portion of the property had been acquired by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad for the purpose of road widening. The accommodation now available is only for 10 to 15 square yards. Whatever the extent is available after acquisition by the municipality for the purpose of road widening, the landlords are entitled for the same. On analysis of the oral and documentary evidence and legal position cited herein the additional requirement of the landlord’s family is pressing, genuine and bona fide one. Hence, this point is answered in favour of the landlords and against the tenant — respondent”. It is no doubt true that the learned Counsel for respondents-landlords had placed strong reliance on the words used by the Appellate Authority “pressing, genuine and bona fide one”. In the light of the language of the proviso, this Court is of the considered opinion that the statutory requirement is not satisfied. In view of the same, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority to give opportunity to both the parties, if they so require, to let-in further evidence on this aspect only relating to undue hardship and dispose of the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. --X—