THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Civil Revision Petition No. 2998 of 2010 Order: This revision is directed against the order dated 13.04.2010 passed in R.C.A. No. 5 of 2009 by the Rent Control Appellate Tribunal-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet, reversing the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2009 passed in RCC No.1 of 2008 by the Special Officer (Rent Controller)-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Rent Controller for the sake of convenience. The petitioner is the landlord. He sought eviction of the respondent/tenant from the petition schedule property on the grounds of willful default and bona fide requirement under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3) (c) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’). The learned Rent Controller disbelieved the version of the landlord on the issue of willful default, but accepted his version on the issue of bona fide requirement and, accordingly, allowed the RCC No.1 of 2008. Challenging the same, the tenant preferred an appeal in RCA No.5 of 2009. The appellate authority, having re-appreciated the entire evidence and material on record, came to the conclusion that the claim of bona fide requirement is not genuine. The appellate authority also observed that when the petitioner did not seek the eviction of the tenant under Section 10(2)(v) of the Act i.e., on the ground of securing alternative accommodation, the Rent Controller was not justified in holding that the tenant had secured alternative accommodation and, accordingly, dismissed the RCC No.1 of 2008. Challenging the same, the petitioner/landlord preferred the present revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner/landlord submitted that the appellate authority failed to appreciate that the landlord is having two children and that he required the additional accommodation for study and comfortable living of his children and that the appellate authority ought not to have reversed the well reasoned order passed by the Rent Controller. It is also submitted that it is an admitted fact that the respondent secured alternative accommodation and the Rent Controller has rightly relied on such circumstance. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/tenant submitted that there are three other shops in the same premises which are bigger in size than the petition schedule premises and that the petition schedule premises is a small room which is being used as a pen corner and that the petitioner sought the eviction of the respondent with a mala fide intention and that there are no bona fides in the claim of the petitioner. It is also his submission that the petitioner had pleaded that the tenancy has already been vacated and subsequently the respondent forcibly occupied the premises and, therefore, the petition under the provisions of the Act is not maintainable. The points that arise for consideration are; (1) Whether the claim o f bona fide requirement of the petitioner is genuine?, (2) Whether there is any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and eviction petition is maintainable? and (3) Whether the order passed by the appellate authority is perverse and liable to be set aside? As seen from the evidence on record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is the owner of the petition schedule premises. The petition schedule premises has been leased out to the respondent in the year 1990 on a monthly rent of Rs.300/- and the respondent has been running a pen corner under the name and style of “Radhika Pen Corner”. The rent has been enhanced from time to time and the rent as on the date of filing of the petition is Rs.1,000/- per month. The petitioner’s case is that his daughter is studying intermediate second year in Chaitanya Junior College, Chilakaluripet and his son is studying third year Polytechnic course at Hyderabad. The petitioner was living with his parents in his house, but now the parents of the petitioner are no more. His residential house is comprised of four shops including the petition schedule shop and these shops are towards road side. The petitioner himself is running a book shop in the name and style of ‘Vijayalakshmi Book Shop’. The petitioner’s further case is that the petition schedule premises is required to modify it as a study room for his children. It appears that the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent went to the extent of lodging complaints against one another in the police station. It is also the case of the petitioner that when he started making repairs to the petition schedule premises, the respondent filed a suit in O.S. No.76 of 2007 against him seeking injunction orders. Even Section 145 Cr.P.C proceedings were initiated against both the parties. It is also the case of the petitioner that when the matter was reported to the police the respondent vacated the premises on 09.04.2007 and subsequently forcibly re-entered into the possession. It is also his case that though he reported the matter to the police alleging criminal trespass by the respondent on 10.04.2007 the police did not take any action. The evidence of PW.1 reveals that the petitioner’s daughter’s examinations have been completed and she was taking coaching to appear for entrance examination to secure a seat in engineering course. It may be a fact that the son and daughter of the petitioner may be studying at Hyderabad and Chilakaluripet respectively, but the fact remains that now they are grown up and it cannot be said that they would be occasional visitors to the house of their father. As rightly observed by the learned Rent Controller it becomes the obligation of the father to provide sufficient accommodation to his children when they visit his house for their residence and study purpose. They may have to stay with their parents days together or months together depending upon the course they take or the holidays they have to spend. As and when children visit their parents, they may prefer separate rooms for their study and living. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner bona fidely require the premises. The appellate authority has also observed as follows. “…………No doubt his children cannot be considered as occasional visitors or guests to their parents for one or two days but in the case on hand there is no evidence placed by landlord that his children are frequently visiting their own house and residing there number of days and suffering for better studies during their stay at the house for want of proper accommodation.” When the very claim is based on the ground that the children of the petitioner require study room and the petition schedule premises is required for additional accommodation, the appellate authority seems to be not justified in making such observations. I have gone through the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and it is clear that there is nothing to disbelieve their version on this aspect. PW.2 may be a close relative of PW.1, but that cannot be a ground to discard his evidence. In fact PW.1 was not cross-examined on the claim of bona fide requirement. PW.1 has categorically deposed that their children need privacy for their studies and therefore the petition schedule premises is required to be modified for studies of his children. Thus, it is clear that the findings of the appellate authority are not based on record and perverse. In fact, the learned Rent Controller has given valid reasons for his findings. As seen from the evidence, in other shops one tenant is running Navodaya Book Centre and in another shop the petitioner himself is running Vijayalakshmi Book Stall and that there is R & B road in front of the petition schedule property. In view of the above facts, it is submitted that the petitioner could accommodate his children in the other premises or in the other portion of his house. It is for the petitioner to decide whether the petition schedule premises is suitable or not or any other room in the possession of other tenants is suitable for the study of his children, but a tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord to choose a particular premises. Admittedly, the claim of the petitioner that the respondent committed willful default was negatived by the Rent Controller and the petitioner did not challenge the said finding of the Rent Controller. Therefore, the same became final. It has come in the evidence that the respondent/tenant purchased a house by the side of the petition schedule property in the name of his wife and the said house is facing towards main road. He has purchased another house in Veeraraghavaiah bazar. Of course, it is at a distance of 1 KM from the petition schedule premises. But, admittedly, the house purchased in the name of his wife is adjacent to the petition schedule property which consists of two floors. The respondent is residing in the first floor, his brother is residing in the second floor and nobody is residing in the second floor. His brother is running Usha Book Centre. Of course, it is not clear whether his brother is running Usha Book Centre in the premises purchased in his name or in the name of his wife. Thus, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the respondent has secured alternative accommodation. But, admittedly, the petitioner did not seek eviction of the respondent on the ground of securing alternative accommodation under Section 10(2)(v) of the Act. In view of my finding on the issue of bona fide requirement, it appears that there is no need to discuss as to whether the subsequent circumstances of securing alternative accommodation by the respondent can be taken into consideration or not. Of course, subsequent events also can be taken into consideration, but admittedly there is no specific plea by the petitioner about the subsequent events and admittedly the petitioner did not file any application seeking to amend his pleadings. In the circumstances, the CRP is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.04.2010 passed by the appellate authority in RCA No.5 of 2009 is set aside restoring the order dated 03.11.2009 passed by the learned Rent Controller in R.C.C. No.1 of 2008. The respondent/tenant shall vacate the petition schedule premises on or before 31st December 2011 subject to payment of arrears of rents, if any, to the petitioner/landlord. However, in the circumstances, no costs. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 29th September 2011 Nsr