HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3448 of 2​006 ORDER:- The petitioner in this revision which is filed under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short Act) is the landlord. Having been unsuccessful before the Rent Controller and the appellate authority he filed this revision. 2. There is no dispute regarding the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. The premises in question is a non-residential one. According to the averments in the eviction petition the rent is Rs.750/- per month. The landlord brought the eviction petition on three grounds. The first is wilful default in payment of rents for the month of June 1995 and also for the second half year of 1995. The second is bona fide requirement for the purposes of his minor son to commence a cloth business in partnership with his (landlord’s) brothers-in-law with the minor’s mother acting as his guardian. The third is acts of waste. 3. The tenant contested the eviction petition. The details of the oral and documentary evidence let in by both sides are given at the foot of the Rent Controller’s order. Both the learned Rent Controller and the appellate authority considered all the three grounds and held against the landlord. A perusal of the order of the Rent Controller and also the order of the appellate authority would show that they considered the matter at length and rejected the case of the landlord and the findings recorded by them cannot be said to be even improper and they are based on evidence. The learned counsel for the landlord could not bring to my notice any circumstance to show that the order of the appellate authority suffers from any infirmity. As the said findings are pure findings of fact it follows that there is no ground to interfere with the same. 4. Sri O.Manohar Reddy the learned counsel appearing for the landlord has however in this revision filed a miscellaneous petition supported by the affidavit of the landlord to show that the tenant has acquired a business premises in the name of his wife in the same locality where the petition schedule shop is situated and therefore the landlord should be permitted to plead the securing of alternative accommodation as a ground for eviction in this revision. The landlord also filed a registration copy of the sale deed dated 24.07.2007 which stands in the name of tenant’s wife in support of his above plea. Sri Manohar Reddy says that this is a subsequent development and should be taken into account by this Court for ordering eviction on the said ground. 5. Sri Manohar Reddy then pointed out that on the date of the eviction petition the landlord’s son was aged only 16 years and he has now become a major and therefore the plea of landlord that his son requires the present premises for his personal requirement can be accepted treating it as a subsequent development as it becomes a ground for eviction now. In support of his contention that subsequent developments can be taken into account for ordering eviction he relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court given in SHESHAMBAL vs. CHELUR CORPN. CHELUR BUILDING[1]. 6. Regarding the plea of securing alternative accommodation which is now raised in this revision, the tenant filed a counter to the aforesaid miscellaneous petition opposing the said plea. His stand is that in the premises mentioned by the landlord his wife and son have already been carrying on business in their own name and the said premises is also situated in a bi-lane and they are carrying on a jewellery business there. It is also stated by the tenant that his wife and son were carrying on the above business even during the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Controller and the landlord did not raise that plea at that time and therefore he cannot be permitted to raise it now. 7. Then turning to the plea of bona fide requirement based on the ground of landlord’s son becoming a major now, the learned counsel for the tenant pointed out that the landlord’s son is studying an Engineering course now and there is no need for him to commence any business. He also invited my attention to certain pleas in the eviction petition regarding this ground of bona fide requirement and as to how both the authorities below rejected the same and argued that the present ground cannot be entertained now. Thus the above two grounds now raised in this revision are taken up. 8. It is true that in the aforesaid SHESHAMBAL’s case referred to supra it has been laid down as a principle that subsequent developments can be taken into account in rent control proceedings also. Now coming to the plea based on securing alternative accommodation, it may be noted that this plea was not taken originally in the eviction petition and it was also not raised before the appellate authority though the tenant came up with a specific plea that his wife and son were doing a different business in the said premises even during the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Controller. No further affidavit has been filed by the landlord denying the above plea of the tenant that his wife and son were doing a separate business in that premises even during the pendency of proceedings before the Rent Controller. This is a minus point for the landlord. 9. It may then be noted that securing of alternative accommodation is altogether a different ground for eviction under the Act and both sides have to let in their evidence. It is not the case of the landlord that the tenant has been doing the same business which he is doing in the premises in question in the said alternative accommodation. A further question would also arise as to whether the wife of the tenant is only a name lender with regard to the title of the property and the business done therein and whether the tenant in fact secured that accommodation as an alternative accommodation. This question has to be decided on evidence again basing on the pleadings of the parties on the same. Hence it would not be proper to entertain that plea in this revision as an additional ground. The other alternative would be to remand the matter for a decision on that question or point. Instead of that it would always be desirable to direct the landlord to approach the Rent Controller for eviction afresh on that ground. Further the ground of subsequent developments for being considered in a revision the said developments must relate to a ground already taken in the eviction petition but not altogether to a different ground which was not taken in the eviction petition. Accordingly this plea of the landlord based on alternative accommodation is rejected. 10. Then coming to the ground of bona fide requirement of the premises for the proposed business of the landlord’s son on the ground that he became a major now, my opinion is that the said ground also cannot be entertained, though this subsequent development is related to the ground already taken in the eviction petition, for the following reasons. It may be firstly noted that the eviction petition is of 1995. The order of the Rent Controller shows that the landlord’s son at that time was aged 17 years and was studying Intermediate. The landlord’s appeal before the appellate authority is of 1999 and it was disposed of on 20.12.2005. It is thus clear that even by the filing of the date of appeal and during its pendency the landlord’s son must have become major. The landlord did not take this plea before the appellate authority. This is again a minus point for the landlord. 11. It may be noted that in the eviction petition regarding the bona fide requirement the landlord pleaded that his two brothers- in-law Kanigicherla Subrahmanyam and Kanigicherla Nageswara Rao wanted to start a cloth business in the locality or town where the premises is situate and that he wants to admit his son who was a minor then into the benefits of a partnership with them with his mother as guardian. This was the plea taken in the eviction petition. The learned Rent Controller considered this aspect thoroughly and rejected the case of the landlord and that was confirmed by the appellate authority and they even went to the extent of observing that the landlord invented that plea only with an intention to evict the tenant. It is not clear now as to whether the landlord’s son wants to commence business individually or again as a partner with his maternal uncles though he became a major now. 12. It may also be noted that no particulars are filed as to what the landlord’s son is doing now and what business he wants to commence in the premises. Even in the grounds of revision which is filed in 2006 no plea is taken that the landlord’s son has become a major and therefore he wants to commence business and in that view of the matter this ground of bona fide requirement should be considered now though the same counsel who filed the revision has argued the matter on behalf of the landlord. It is seen that at the time of arguments this ground has been raised without any foundation in the grounds of revision. As already mentioned supra this plea was also not taken in the grounds of appeal though the appeal is of 1999 and it was pending before the appellate authority for about nearly more than five years i.e. upto 2005 and by which time the landlord’s son must have become major. Thus without giving any particulars of the present avocation of the landlord’s son and his need for the premises, it is not open for the landlord in this revision to plead this ground urging that his son has become a major now. It may be noted that this ground now taken in the above circumstances requires a full trial and the tenant must have an opportunity to contest the same and therefore the landlord can be permitted to raise it in only a fresh eviction petition. 13. Accordingly for the aforesaid reasons both the above grounds now urged by the landlord are rejected. So far as the appellate authority’s order rejecting the case of the landlord as originally pleaded confirming the order of the Rent Controller, there is no reason to interfere with the same as it relates to findings of fact. Hence this CRP is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 29th March 2011 CVRK [1] (2010) 3 SCC 470