Judgment : 1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against order dated 05.02.2008 in R.A.No.180 of 2006 passed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, wherein the Appeal filed by the respondent herein under Section 20 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1960 (for brevity ‘the Act’) was allowed by setting aside order dated 06.04.2006 in R.C.No.333 of 2004 passed by the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as landlady and tenant. 3. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the Civil Revision Petition are as follows: Landlady filed eviction petition on the plea that she requires it for the proposed business of her second son G. Raji Reddy. The suit premises is a non-residential premises and the tenant, who is a medical practitioner, admittedly, running a clinic in it. The case of the landlady is that her second son is unemployed and he has already gained experience in the shop of her first son and therefore, he requires the suit premises to commence his own business in it and therefore, he requires the suit premises to commence his own business for running a general stores. It is also pleaded that the tenant was not regular in paying the rents. 4. The tenant filed counter stating that he is running his clinic in the suit premises since 35 years and he was always paying rents regularly and not troubled the landlady. It is also pleaded that the second son of the landlady is having his own avocation and the landlady’s plea that she requires the suit premises for his business is not correct and the landlady has invented that plea only for the purpose of evicting him to let out the premises for higher rents. It is also stated that the landlady demanded him to enhance the rent from Rs.650/- to Rs.1200/- per month, when he refused to enhance the rent, landlady along with her sons demanded to vacate the premises, as such, he filed suit for perpetual injunction against the landlady. It is also pleaded that the landlady and her sons have several non-residential properties and another non residential premises has been vacated by the proprietor of Shakthi Electronics and the same is available. 5. During trial, first son of landlady was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. It is also pleaded that the landlady and her sons have several non-residential properties and another non residential premises has been vacated by the proprietor of Shakthi Electronics and the same is available. 5. During trial, first son of landlady was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. Tenant examined himself as R.W.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B7. 6. The trial Court by order dated 06.04.2006, allowed the eviction petition on the ground of bonafide requirement pleaded by the landlady and negatived the plea of willful default of payment of rents by the tenant. Against the same, the tenant filed R.A.No.180 of 2006, which was allowed by order dated 05.02.2008 and against the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contends that the Rent Controller, after considering pleadings, oral and documentary evidence adduced on both sides, rightly allowed the eviction petition, but the appellate Court set aside the same only on the ground that the landlady and second son of the landlady were not examined. He also contends that after the death of husband of landlady, elder son of landlady is looking after the entire affairs of the family and he is competent to speak about the affairs of the building. It is common that after the death of head of family, elder son will lookafter the affairs of the family and as such, he was rightly examined. Landlady being old, she was not examined herself. When P.W.1 is competent to speak about the affairs of the building, it cannot be said that non examination of second son of landlady in respect of whom suit premises is sought for, can affect the case of the landlady. He would further contend that just because there is delay in filing eviction petition after issuing notice to the tenant, it cannot be said that the requirement of suit premises for the second son of landlady is not bonafide. He also contends that there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1. But the appellate Court erroneously set aside the well considered order of the trial Court only on the ground of non examination of landlady and her second son and rejected the plea of bonafide requirement. He also contends that there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1. But the appellate Court erroneously set aside the well considered order of the trial Court only on the ground of non examination of landlady and her second son and rejected the plea of bonafide requirement. It is also contended that P.W.1 is doing rice business and STD booth adjacent to suit mulgi and the suit premises is required for running general stores by the second son of landlady. In support of his contention, he relied on the following decisions: Podelly Chinna Chinnanna v. Bandari Pedda Bhumanna (ALD-2004-1-241), Ramkubai v. Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak (LAWS (SC)-1999-8-162), Devi Pershad v. Rajava Desai (LAWS(APH)-2002-6-161/ALT-2002-5-710) and Raj Bahadur v. Sushila Devi Nigam (LAWS (DLH)-1981-2-11/DRJ-1981-2-138) 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would contend that except examining P.W.1, no evidence is adduced on behalf of the landlady to show that the premises was required for running business of second son of landlady. It is also contended that neither the person for whom the premises is required nor the landlady is examined, as such, appellate Court rightly held that the evidence is not convincing and on that ground allowed the appeal filed by the tenant. It is further contended that the appellate Court appreciated the evidence and arrived at the finding, which cannot be disturbed in the revision. 9. Now, it has to be seen whether the landlady who filed eviction petition, requires the suit premises for personal occupation of his second son for running business? 10. The elder son of landlady is examined himself as P.W.1, is already running business in the adjacent shop of the suit mulgi. The trial Court believed the evidence of P.W.1 and came to the conclusion that the second son of the landlady was not carrying on the business in any other shop or doing the job in any place, basing on which, ordered eviction. P.W.1 clearly deposed that landlady has got two sons, himself and G.Raji Reddy. It is also deposed that P.W.1 and landlady got evicted adjacent shop occupied by tenant Shakti Electronics by filing Rent Control proceedings. P.W.1 clearly deposed that landlady has got two sons, himself and G.Raji Reddy. It is also deposed that P.W.1 and landlady got evicted adjacent shop occupied by tenant Shakti Electronics by filing Rent Control proceedings. It is further deposed that P.W.1 is doing business in that premises and now his younger brother, who has gained experience, wants to commence his own business of general stores, as such, landlady requires the suit premises for personal occupation of her second son. 11. The respondent/tenant was unable to show that the landlady is having other nonresidential premises and same is vacant. Even according to tenant, there are three mulgies, out of which, one mulgi is occupied by tenant, one by Shakti Electronics, which was got evicted by landlady and in the said shop, P.W.1 is running rice business and STD booth and in another shop i.e., suit premises, R.W.1/tenant is running clinic. 12. The evidence of P.W.1 can be believed because when already one shop is evicted for one son by landlady, P.W.1 being elder son is running business, the second son also is entitled for another shop for running his own business, for which eviction is sought. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 appears to be natural, though the tenant has taken a plea that landlady is having other non-residential premises, but the same was not proved. When P.W.1 deposed himself that he already started rice business in rice and STD booth, his younger brother wants to start general stores business, that aspect was not considered by the appellate Court in proper prospective. The trial Court by considering the evidence on both sides and admissions made by R.W.1 ordered eviction of the tenant. The appellate Court by taking an erroneous view only on the ground that the landlady and her second son were not examined and set aside the well considered order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. In Podelly Chinna Chinnanna v. Bandari Pedda Bhumanna(supra), it is held as under: “Therefore, the only requirement for a person to come into the witness box to speak in regard to any facts and circumstances of the case is that he should be competent enough to testify i.e., to speak. The competency as contemplated is very wider in its connotation. In Podelly Chinna Chinnanna v. Bandari Pedda Bhumanna(supra), it is held as under: “Therefore, the only requirement for a person to come into the witness box to speak in regard to any facts and circumstances of the case is that he should be competent enough to testify i.e., to speak. The competency as contemplated is very wider in its connotation. There is distinctive feature between one who is said to be competent on behalf of the person to speak and another how far and to what extent the person can speak. These two aspects cannot be mixed up to reject a person from entering the witness box. As long as one holds proper authority under a Power of Attorney or otherwise, he is fully competent to come as witness on behalf of the said party. The competency as provided for further gets extended under Section 120 of Evidence Act providing that in any civil proceedings the husband or wife of a party to a suit shall be a competent witness. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Power of Attorney holder cannot be said to be incompetent as witness on behalf of the party/executant…. It is thus held answering the reference that a Power of Attorney holder is a competent witness on behalf of the party/executant and further that the effect and relevancy of such evidence has to be considered from proper perspective on the facts and circumstances of each case.” In Ramkubai v. Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak (supra), it is observed as under: “The Appellate Court was swayed away by the fact that the landlady herself did not come into witness-box to support her claim. What is not appreciated by the Appellate Court is that her son Bhikchand who was also her G.P.A. holder and for whose benefit the business is to be set up, did come into the witness-box to support the case of personal requirement.” In Devi Pershad v. Rajava Desai (supra), it is observed as under: “13. The facts and circumstances of the present case are identical and the observations made by the Supreme Court would directly meet the contentions raised by the petitioner. It may be noted that the landlady sought eviction of the tenants on the ground that the petition schedule premises is required for the purpose of business intended to be commenced by her sons. It may be noted that the landlady sought eviction of the tenants on the ground that the petition schedule premises is required for the purpose of business intended to be commenced by her sons. The eldest son who is holding the General Power of Attorney on behalf of his mother was examined as P.W.1 and he deposed as to the averments in the petition with particular reference to the bona fide requirement. Therefore, the Courts below have rightly relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 and it must be held that the finding recorded that the petitioner has successfully established the ground of bona fide requirement cannot be said to be erroneous or without any basis.” 13. In view of above discussion and also in view of law laid down in above Judgments relied on by counsel for petitioners, I am of the opinion that it is not necessary that landlady should be examined, when her elder son, who is looking after the affairs of the family, is examined. The trial Court believed the evidence of P.W.1. Just because different view is possible, appellate Court cannot reverse the well-considered judgment of the trial Court. 14. I have perused the order passed by the Rent Controller and the view taken by it is reasonable one, which does not require interference. But the appellate Court has taken a different view, even though view taken by the trial Court is not erroneous, as such, same is liable to be set aside Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside order dated 05.02.2008 in R.A.No.180 of 2006 passed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and restore the eviction order dated 06.04.2006 in R.C.No.333 of 2004 passed by the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. However, the tenant is granted four (4) months time for vacating the suit premises on the condition that he shall pay all arrears of rent and shall continue to pay the existing rent for a period of four (4) months with an undertaking that he shall not induct third parties into suit premises and also undertakes to handover vacant and peaceful possession of suit premises to civil revision petitioner/landlord at the end of four months period. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand closed.