THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1658 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioners filed this revision under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 {“the Act” for brevity}, inter alia, seeking to assail the correctness of the order dated 02.02.2009 in R.C.A.No.3 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Appellate Court of Rent Control Cases, Visakhapatnam, in dismissing the appeal filed under Section 20 of the Act and confirming the order dated 17.12.2007 in R.C.C.No.18 of 2005 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. Without going into the evidence or the findings as arrived at by both the Courts below, it would suffice to take note that initially, the eviction petition was filed in R.C.C.No.18 of 2005 under Section 10-C (1) (c) of the Act on the ground that the landlord and his wife are senior citizens and they require the premises for the purpose of commencement of business of their daughter namely, Sandhya. The Rent Controller accepted the version of the respondents herein and ordered eviction. Mean while, during the pendency of the petition, before the appeal could have been disposed of, both the landlord and his wife died one after the other. In view of the same, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the cause of action does not survive. Further, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that subsequently, the sons, who have been added as legal representatives, filed eviction petition in R.C.C.No.8 of 2009 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, and the same is pending. Having heard the learned counsel and on perusal of the material available on record, it is seen that having regard to the subsequent events, especially the death of the original landlord and his wife, who sought eviction mainly on the ground that they being senior citizens and the sons admittedly staying in the United States of America and the requirement as shown in the present proceedings is only for commencement of business by their daughter, Sandhya, it would be more appropriate in the interest of justice to direct the trial Court to take up both the cases and dispose of together, after regular enquiry. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the orders dated 02.02.2009 in R.C.A.No.3 of 2008 and dated 17.12.2007 in R.C.C.No.18 of 2005 are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Court of the Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, to try and dispose of R.C.C.No.18 of 2005 together with R.C.C.No.8 of 2009 on merits and in accordance with law, after giving sufficient notice and opportunity to both the sides. It is also made clear that both the parties are at liberty to lead fresh evidence, if any. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) 23rd December 2010 RRB