O R D E R The legal representatives of the tenant-Shaik Khaja Moinuddin filed the present C.R.P. under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ in short for the purpose of convenience) as against the order made by the Appellate Authority-cum-Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in R.A.No.25/98 dated 2-5-2003. The respondent-Mir Abed Ali (hereinafter referred to as ‘landlord’) filed R.C.No.780/92 on the file of the II-Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad, on the grounds of wilful default and also bona fide personal requirement. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the same and the landlord carried the matter by way of appeal R.A.No.238/95 and the Appellate Authority remanded the matter for fresh disposal in accordance with law after recording evidence of both sides on the point whether the landlord is having any other mulgies in his possession for the use and occupation of him for carrying on Kirana business. The learned Rent Controller again dismissed the R.C. and the landlord preferred appeal R.A.No.25/98 and the matter was remanded and aggrieved by the same, the matter was carried by way of C.R.P.No.2979/98 and in the said C.R.P. the following Order was made:- “Hence, the real question that falls for consideration is whether the respondent-landlord has been carrying on ‘kirana’ business or not in mulgi bearing No.16-8-563 and by him and whether he is entitled to claim possession of the mulgi bearing No.16-8-565 for starting his own business. With the evidence available on record, the appellate court can decide the issue. Accordingly, the judgment of the appellate court is set aside; and the matter is remanded to the appellate court for fresh disposal of the appeal basing on the evidence available on record after giving opportunity to both the parties, within one month from the date of communication of this order. Accordingly, the judgment of the appellate court is set aside; and the matter is remanded to the appellate court for fresh disposal of the appeal basing on the evidence available on record after giving opportunity to both the parties, within one month from the date of communication of this order. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed; there shall be no order as to costs.” In view of the same, the Appellate Authority on appreciation of evidence allowed the appeal granting relief of eviction to the landlord and aggrieved by the same, the legal representatives of the tenant filed the present C.R.P. It is pertinent to note that the ground of wilful default had been negatived and the same was not seriously canvassed at any point of time even by the landlord and the only ground which survives for consideration is the bona fide personal requirement of the landlord. 2. Sri Mohd. Ali Farooq, the learned Counsel representing the legal representatives of the tenant-the revision petitioners had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller initially and pointed out to R.A.No.238/95 and also had brought to the notice of this Court that after remanded the landlord had not filed any document or had let-in any further evidence and on behalf of the tenant R.W.2- the wife and R.W.3 an independent witness were examined. The learned Counsel also pointed out that again R.C. was dismissed and the matter was carried by way of appeal R.A.No.25/98 which had been remanded and as against which C.R.P.No.2979/98 was filed, wherein certain directions had been issued. The learned Counsel also would point out that in R.A.No.25/98 the landlord led further evidence by marking Exs.P.4 to P.7 through P.W.1 and the learned Counsel also pointed out that Exs.R.38 to R.40 the photographs and negatives, also had been marked. The learned Counsel would contend that the direction in the C.R.P. is clear that the matter may have to be disposed of based on the evicence available on record and hence permitting the parties to let-in further evidence cannot be said to be in consonance with the order made in the C.R.P. The learned Counsel also would submit that at any rate the bona fide personal requirement is not established by the landlord in any way. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions. 3. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions. 3. Per contra, Sri Basith Ali Yavar, the learned Counsel representing the respondent in the C.R.P. – landlord had pointed out that while disposing of the C.R.P., the learned Judge observed giving opportunity to both the parties and hence letting-in evidence in appeal cannot be found fault at all. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the evidence available on record and also the evidence which had been let-in before the Appellate Authority. The learned Counsel while elaborating the submissions pointed out to the findings recorded by the Appellate Court and also placed reliance on certain decisions. 4. Heard the counsel on record and perused the findings recorded. 5. The landlord filed eviction petition R.C.No.780/92 on the file of the II-Addl. Rent Controller, Hydereabad, on the ground of wilful default and yet another ground of bona fide personal requirement. The ground of wilful default was negatived and in the light of the litigation being a long drawn one, the said findings which had attained finality need not be disturbed so far as it relates to the ground of wilful default. In addition to the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and R.W.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.3 and Exs.R.1 to R.37 which had been already on record, R.W.2 the wife of the deceased tenant and RW.3 – Syed Taheeruddin, an independent witness were examined on remand and Exs.P.4 to P.7 and Exs.R.38 to R.40 also had been marked as additional documents before the Appellate Authority. The landlord purchased 2 commercial mulgies bearing Municipal Nos. 16-8-564 and 16-8-565, the petition schedule premises, from one Yaseen Bee under Ex.P.4 the registered sale deed, dated 1-3-1984, and the tenant who is no more at present was already a tenant in the premises from 1964 and adjacent to this, there is yet another mulgi and the brother of the landlord-P.W.2 purchased the same under yet another registered sale deed-Ex.P.7. The stand taken by the landlord is that Municipal No. 16-8-564 is under occupation of P.W.2 as tenant who is carrying on Kirana business. Specific stand was taken that the landlord wants to commence business in edible oils in the schedule mulgi for maintenance of his large family and his requirement is bona fide. The stand taken by the landlord is that Municipal No. 16-8-564 is under occupation of P.W.2 as tenant who is carrying on Kirana business. Specific stand was taken that the landlord wants to commence business in edible oils in the schedule mulgi for maintenance of his large family and his requirement is bona fide. As per the evidence available on record, it is clear that there is a flour mill in mulgi No. 16-8-563 and this was in existence even prior to the purchase by P.W.2. The stand taken by the tenant was to the effect that the present landlord had been looking after the flour mill whereas P.W.2 had been looking after kirana business and hence, the bona fide personal requirement is only made a ground for the purpose of throwing him out. As already referred to supra, the Appellate Authority in pursuance of the directions made in the C.R.P. specified above, again allowed the appeal ordering eviction on the ground of bona fide personal requirement on appreciation of the further evidence which had been let-in on remand and also the documentary evidence Exs.P.4 to P.7 and Exs.R.38 to R.40. It is no doubt true that though P.W.1 deposed that he has nothing to do with mulgi No.563 in chief- examination, in cross-examination this witness deposed that it belongs to his brother-P.W.2 and in his absence, he used to sit in the shop and certain payments were made to him in relation to the same. It is true that the said version of P. W.1 was not supported by P.W.2 and he had taken a stand that the landlord has been jobless. Be that as it may, the ownership of the respective properties by P.Ws.1 and 2 is not in serious controversy. In fact Exs.P.7 and P.4 would clearly establish the same. P.W.2 is running kirana business. Apart from this aspect of the matter relating to the running of flour mill in mulgi No.563 the original trade licence-Ex.P.5 stands in the name of P.W.2. It is also not in controversy that P.W.2 is running some kirana shop in premises No.564. From the evidence of RW.3 it appears that he is shown as a chance witness and R W 2 is the wife of the deceased tenant Exs.R.38, R.39 and R.40 are photos and negatives. It is also not in controversy that P.W.2 is running some kirana shop in premises No.564. From the evidence of RW.3 it appears that he is shown as a chance witness and R W 2 is the wife of the deceased tenant Exs.R.38, R.39 and R.40 are photos and negatives. In the light of the clear evidence available on record Exs P 4 and P 7 and also Exs.P.5 and P.6, the registered sale deeds and the trade licences respectively, on a careful scrutiny of the whole evidence available on record the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that bona fide personal requirement of the landlord had been established The learned Counsel representing the legal representatives of the original tenant revision petitioner was unable to point out any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority except pointing out that permitting further evidence is contrary to the directions issued in the C.R.P. aforesaid. In the light of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the same cannot be accepted. 6. In the RAGHVENDRA KUMAR V. FIRM PREM MACHINERY & CO., (1) the Apex Court held that the setled position of law relating to the bona fide requirement of the landlord in the field of Rent Control and Eviction is that the landlord is the best judge of his own requirement for residential or business purpose and has complete freedom in the matter. The same view was expressed in PRATIVA DEVI V. T. V.KRISHNA (2). In V. RADHAKRISHNAN V. V.S.N. LOGANATHA MUDALIAR (3) while dealing with the eviction petition under Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, where premises bona fide was required for setting up business of landlord’s son and son not in occupation of non-residential building of his own and the fact that landlord himself was in occupation of non-residential building where he was carrying on business would not operate as bar for seeking eviction of tenant for the benefit of his son. The concept of bona fide requirement of the landlord in the context of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 had been explained in DATTA-TRAYA LAXMAN KAMBLE V. ABDUL RASUL MOULALI KOTKUNDE AND ANOTHER(4). The concept of bona fide requirement of the landlord in the context of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 had been explained in DATTA-TRAYA LAXMAN KAMBLE V. ABDUL RASUL MOULALI KOTKUNDE AND ANOTHER(4). In RAMKUBAI V. HAJARI-MAL DHOKALCHAND CHANDAK (5)while dealing with eviction on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord under Bombay Rents, Hotel and lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, it was held that right of individual members of landlord’s family to set up own independent business, bona fide need or setting up business of unemployed son in suit premises cannot be negatived on grounds that such person has, since the litigation began, taken up other employment or work or that another son already has a business or that parent-landlord is a partner in another business, High Court wrongly confirmed the Judgment of the First Appellate Court setting aside the decree of eviction awarded by the Trial Court. Reliance also was placed on G. KAUSHALYA DEVI v. GHANSHYAMDAS (6), SARLA AHUJA v. UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY- LTD. (7), NARASAIAH v. P. NARASIMHA REDDY (DIED) AND OTHERS (L.RS) (8), M/S. VIJAYALAXMI PRINTING PRESS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR. ANAND RAO, NIZAMABAD v. NANDULA SHANKAR AND OTHERS(9) V. LOKANADHA REDDY v. D.NAGARATHA-NAMMA @ MUNEMMA(10) PULLA PRAKASARAO AND OTHERS v. NIMMANA NAGABHUSHANAM(11), G. SATYANARAYANA v. SMT. SABIR BEGUM AND ANOTHER(12), SAVANI TRANSPORT PVT. LTD., v. D. VENKATE-SWAA RAO (13) GANDEPALLI SAMUDRALU V. PENUGONDA SATYA-VATHl AND OTHERS (14) and KANDA LINGAIAH v. P. NIRMALA DEBVI (15). 7. In the light of the clear evidence available on record and also in view of the limitations while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned Order does not warrant any interference and accordingly, the same is hereby confirmed. It is needless to say that the C.R.P., being devoid of merit, the same shall stand dismissed. No costs. The legal representatives of the tenant-revision petitioners are granted four months time to vacate the premises. --X—