HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.Nos.3485 of 2007 and 2065 of 2008 Date: 01-04-2011 C.R.P.No.3485 of 2007: Between: Maturi Sivarama Prasad ………. Petitioner And Manepalli Siva Ramakrishna and another ……….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.Nos.3485 of 2007 and 2065 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: Since common question turns around the ultimate result in the eviction proceedings initiated by the respondents in both the cases against the respective petitioners, hence, at the request of the learned counsel on either side, both the matters are taken up together for disposal. In these two Revisions Petitions, which are filed under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’), the respective petitioners are the tenants of the common landlords, who are respondents 1 and 2. Both the premises involved are the non-residential. In the eviction petitions filed against petitioners-tenants, the respondents-landlords sought for eviction mainly on the ground of personal requirement and occupation as additional accommodation and further that their request is bona fide and genuine. The original monthly rent was Rs.37/- per month in the premises which has been let out to the petitioners-tenants quite some time back. These eviction petitions were contested by the petitioners-tenants denying about the correctness of the ground for eviction and the bona fides therein. Taking into consideration the respective pleadings, the Rent Controller framed points for consideration and thereafter both the parties proceeded with the trial. During the course of enquiry, both the parties themselves were examined as sole witnesses respectively i.e., on behalf of the respondents-landlords PW-1 was examined, and on behalf of the petitioners-tenants RW-1 was examined. On behalf of the respondents- landlords Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked. Whereas, on behalf of the petitioners-tenants, in one case namely in C.R.P.No.3485 of 2007 Exs.B- 1 to B-6 were marked, and in another case in C.R.P.No.2065 of 2008, Exs.B-1 to B-4 were marked. On consideration of the entire evidence and the material on record in R.C.C.No.7 of 2001, initially the Rent Controller dismissed the petition holding that the respondents-landlords have failed to prove the requirement and further holding that if the petitioner-tenant is ordered to be evicted, the relative hardship will be more to him than to the landlords. However, on further appeal at the instance of the landlords, the appellate Court allowed the appeal reversing the finding of the Rent Controller and also holding that there is requirement which is a bona fide in favour of the landlords and ordered for eviction of the petitioner-tenant. Similarly in R.C.C.No.6 of 2001, the Rent Controller, by taking into account the evidence and the material on record, allowed the petition acceding to the ground as set up. On further appeal at the instance of the petitioner-tenant, the appellate Court, on a re-appreciation of the entire evidence once again, agreed with the reasoning and the finding of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal confirming the orders of eviction. Hence, these two Revision Petitions. The only point, which has been urged in these two Revision Petitions by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, apart from making an attack on merits on all the aspects and by taking the Court through the entire evidence and the material on record, is that as mandatorily required under Section 10(2) of the Act, whether the Courts below have paid any due consideration. The main attack centers around with a complaint that due consideration forms a very crucial basis and pedestal before one proceeds for ordering eviction on the ground as set forth by the landlord. In support, the petitioners-tenants sought to place reliance on LAXMI BAI v. YASHODA BAI [1], and therefore, it is the case of the petitioners- tenants that the matter requires reconsideration and reappraisal and also re-enquiry if warranted. These submissions were sought to be repelled on behalf of the respondents-landlords denying about the aforesaid complaint as to non-consideration, but pointed out that there is a due attention paid thereto and therefore, there is neither any warrant for remand nor for interference either way. On a consideration of the entire evidence and the material on record, it has to be seen that there is no dispute in regard to the case and counter-case as set forth by the petitioners-tenants and the respondents- landlords. There is also no dispute to the fact that having regard to the ground as set forth, the hardship thus consists of one of the main criteria to be taken into consideration and also to be weighed with before one accedes to the plea of the landlord. As usual, apart from denying the allegations in the main petition, the petitioners-tenants have taken a plea about their continuous possession all along for quite some time. No doubt neither side have produced any independent evidence in regard to the hardship aspect and both the sole witnesses, who have been examined respectively either as PW-1 or as RW-1, did sought to restrict on the main pleas. But, however, it has been the finding of the Rent Controller itself that the petitioners-tenants if were to be ordered for eviction, really hardship will be more to them than the respondents- landlords. Similar approach is also given due consideration and such plea was negatived while holding that the respondents-landlords require the petition schedule premises for their personal occupation and business, which is genuine. Once genuineness is found to be a true aspect, necessarily on the aspect of hardship of the petitioners-tenants, which has not been elaborated in any manner whatsoever by themselves or by any independent evidence, it cannot be said that there is really such greater inconvenience or hardship to the petitioners. Therefore, it cannot be said, on an appraisal of the judgments of both the Courts below in both the cases, that no attention was paid. Hence such plea is not acceptable. Further having regard to the appreciation made by the Courts below and the findings as arrived at by them respectively, it cannot be said that there is any perversity or that they are not supported by any evidence or the material on record. Accordingly, such of the findings on facts cannot be interfered with in exercise of the revisional powers as conferred under Section 22 of the Act. No other plea has been raised. In view of the same, I do not find any merits in either of the Revision Petitions. Both the Civil Revision Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. However, the time for eviction of the petitioners-tenants is three months from today. No costs. _________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J Date: 01-04-2011 YCR [1] 1997 (3) ALT 302