HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5440 of 2011 Dt:-- 12.12.2011 Between:- Varada Veera Raghavachary … Petitioner and Mamidi Hema Venkata Satyanarayana … Respondent This Court made the following:- HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5440 of 2011 ORDER: - Petitioner/tenant filed this revision under Section 22 of the A.P.Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, “the Act”) aggrieved by the order and decree of the Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Appellate Authority, Vijayawada, in R.C.C.M.A.No.70 of 2010, dated 06.09.2011, whereby the order passed by the Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in R.C.C.No.155 of 2007, dated 30.08.2010, has been confirmed. Respondent/landlord filed the above R.C.C. seeking eviction of the petitioner on the ground of willful default and denied the ownership of the petitioner; that the petitioner secured alternative accommodation and also altered the suit schedule premises; and that the landlord requires the premises for personal occupation for running a kirana general stores. Petitioner/tenant contested the claim of the respondent contending that originally respondent’s mother is the owner of the building. The rents were paid regularly to the landlord and the landlord failed to receive the rents from January, 2007 onwards. He filed R.C.C.No.109 of 2007 under Section 8(5) of the Act for deposit of the rents and impleaded the landlord as 2nd respondent. As the petitioner/landlord never informed about the change of ownership and never demanded the rents as owner thereof, there is no occasion for him to deny the title of the landlord. Petitioner did not make any repairs to the buildings as such there is a leakage in the building roof during rainy season and the entire schedule property is being damaged. Petitioner has not committed any acts of waste and never committed any damage or alteration without the consent and knowledge of the landlord or his mother at any point of time and he does not require the premises for personal occupation. The Rent Controller answered point Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the tenant holding that he has not committed any default and that he has not secured any alternative accommodation. On point No.3 it was held that the requirement of the landlord is a bona fide one and accordingly, ordered eviction of the tenant from the premises. On appeal being filed, the lower appellate court confirmed the said findings and ordered eviction. Sri V.R.Avula, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the adjacent tenant Rambabu has not been examined where he agreed to vacate the premises for enabling the respondent/landlord to commence the kirana business in the suit schedule premises along with the premises occupied by the petitioner. In the absence of the same, the requirement of the landlord is not a bona fide one. The landlord, who was examined himself as P.W.1, stated that he is working as a trainee in Swathi Kirana Stores for the last four years and acquired the necessary skills to run the kirana stores and, therefore, he wants to commence kirana business of his own. The said evidence of P.W.1 was found favour with both the courts and concurrently accepted the plea of the landlord that he required the suit schedule premises for bona fide requirement. Hence, examination of the co tenant viz., Ramababu, who offered to vacate the suit schedule premises, to establish the bona fide requirement of the petitioner, is not necessary. In view of the same, no infirmity is discernible with the orders passed by the courts below. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner/tenant is granted time till 31.04.2012, subject to his depositing the entire arrears of rent, if any, and continues to deposit the rents payable on or before 5th of every succeeding month and gives an undertaking to the Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order that he will vacate and handover possession of the property to the landlord on or before 31.04.2012. In default of either of the conditions, it is open for the landlord to execute the decree, in accordance with law. No costs. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J 12.12.2011 lmv HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5440 of 2011 12.12.2011 lmv