Chandrasekhara Sastry, J.
(1) The question that arise for determination in this case is one under Sec. 10(3)(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act, 1960 which is as follows :
'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 purposes or for the purpose of a business which he is carrying on, as the case may be.'
On this point two decisions of this court are placed before me. One is the decision in Shajehan Saheb v. Yakub Khan Saheb, (1962) 1 Andh WR 205 at p. 210 in which it is held that :
' ................................... The landlord cannot evict a tenant from a residential building when he required it for a non-residential purpose ; similarly, he could only evict a tenant from a portion of the building which is used for non-residential purpose by the tenant, only if he required that portion for non-residential purpose and not when he required for residential purpose.'
The learned Judge further held that :
' .............................. if the portion of the building in the occupation of the tenant is used for residential purpose, the landlord could evict him only if he required that portion for a residential purpose.'
On the other hand, Mr. Y. B. Tatarao, learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision in Appalaraju v. Samburatnamurthy, 1961-2 Andh WR 235 wherein another learned Judge took a contrary view. It may be mentioned here that in the former decision, this decision is not referred to. In view of this conflict, I direct that the Civil Revision Petition be posted before a Bench of two Judges under R. 1 of Appellate Side Rules.