HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5902 of 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition under Section 22 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, is directed against an order made in R.C.A.No.2 of 2008 dated 21/10/2009 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, whereunder the order of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, in R.C.C.No.23 of 2006 dated 20/12/2007 allowing the application filed by the respondent on the ground of default in payment of rents, personal requirement and change in the nature of use and order of eviction was confirmed. The respondent is the landlady. The appellant is the tenant. The respondent/landlady filed R.C.C.No.23 of 2006 seeking eviction of the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rents and personal requirement and also change in the nature of use. Before the Rent Controller, the husband of the landlady was examined as P.W.1 and marked documents Exs.A-1 to A-20. On behalf of the petitioner herein, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-18 were marked. After a detailed consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the Rent Controller allowed the application and ordered eviction as prayed for on the ground of default in payment of rents, personal requirement and change in nature of use. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner herein filed appeal in R.C.A.No.2 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. The appellate authority, after going through the order in R.C.C.No.23 of 2006 dated 20/12/2007 and other material placed before it, came to the conclusion that the Rent Controller has not committed any error calling for its interference and as such dismissed the appeal while upholding the order passed in R.C.C.No.23 of 2006 dated 20/12/2007. Aggrieved thereby, the present civil revision petition is filed. The only question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the RCC was filed by the respondent/landlady, she did not enter the witness box and therefore, on this ground alone, the order passed by the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority are liable to be set aside. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the respondent alleged that the petitioner fell in arrears in payment of rent and that the appellant asserted that he has paid Rs.1,45,000/- towards advance, and from that amount, the respondent was supposed to deduct, therefore, the question of default does not arise. Apart from that, the respondent/landlady asserted that the premises is required for the personal use of her husband for conducting business. But since she was not examined, there was no opportunity for the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent/landlady since she has not entered into the witness box to elicit the truth as to payment of Rs.1,45,000/- and also as to the personal requirement of her husband. There is no necessity of going into all the details. In this regard, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court recorded a finding that firstly, no receipt executed by the landlady was marked. Even according to the petitioner/respondent, he has paid amount, but no receipt was obtained. Even R.Ws.2 and 3 did not speak anything about this and that was not proved. Further, in so far as the personal requirement is concerned, it is the husband who spoke about his personal requirement and nothing has been elicited contrary to the assertions made by the landlady through her husband P.W.1. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the non-examination of the respondent/landlady in the RCC is not fatal to the trial and therefore, no interference can be made in a case of this nature since no prejudice is caused to the interest of the petitioner/respondent. Therefore, the civil revision petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner/respondent is permitted to deliver vacant possession of the premises within a period of three months from today and further, he shall file an undertaking within a period of ten (10) days from today to the effect that he will vacate the premises without any resistance. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 07th July, 2010 SKM