THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4019 OF 2007 Date: 07.06.2011 Between: Tummala Sambasiva Rao ......Petitioner AND No.22 The Tenali Co-operative Urban Bank Limited ......Respondent The Court made the following:- THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4019 OF 2007 O R D E R: This is a tenant’s revision filed under Section 22 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The respondent bank had let out the suit premises to the petitioner on 01.07.1996 on a monthly rent of Rs.450/- and the lease period expired by 30.06.1998. The respondent bank called upon the petitioner to vacate the premises under written notice marked as Ex.A2 dated 03.06.1998. As the petitioner tenant failed to vacate, they filed the present eviction petition on the ground that the respondent bank requires the shop as additional accommodation on account of manifest increased in it’s business. The bank also claimed that the other adjacent shops, which were let out, have been vacated and shop No.7 is being used as a store room by the bank and the occupant of shop No.5 has promised to vacate whereas another occupant of shop No.6 is facing eviction proceedings which are pending in appeal and the present shop No.4 which is the schedule premises is also required by the bank for its additional accommodation. The bank also relied upon circular instructions of the Reserve Bank of India requiring that no part of the bank’s premises should be let out to outsiders. The said requirement pleaded by the bank was denied by the petitioner. But the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, was accepted by the learned Rent Controller and the same was also confirmed by the appellate authority. Hence, this revision. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent bank failed to establish that there was any breach of conditions of the lease as alleged and they also failed to establish their requirement of additional accommodation. 3. A reading of the judgment of the learned Rent Controller, and appellate authority, shows that the respondent bank under a Board Resolution decided not to extend the lease in favour of the petitioner, which was already expired by 30.06.1998. It was also deposed by PW.1 that the business of the bank has increased manifestly and the customers are facing difficulty, as they have to climb narrow steps to reach the first floor resulting in loss of business. The bank therefore required the shops on the ground floor for the purpose of its expansion and though it has got vacant possession of some of their shops, they are not let out to others in view of the pressing requirements of the respondent bank etc. The lower appellate Court also noticed the aforesaid fact that shop Nos. 1, 2 and 7 though vacated are lying vacant, which establishes the genuineness of the requirement of the respondent bank. The additional accommodation sought for by the respondent bank therefore was clearly held established, by both the Courts below. The letter issued by the petitioner in response to the termination notice, namely Ex.A3, shows that the petitioner tenant only required one more year’s time to enable him to shift to another premises. Now, as on today, the petitioner has continued to enjoy the schedule premises during pendency of these proceedings from 1999 onwards. There is no justification on facts to deny the respondent bank of the additional accommodation sought for by them. I therefore see no reasons to defer with the conclusions of the primary and appellate Tribunal and the findings thereof are not vitiated by any irregularity or illegality or perversity. Consequential interference under revisional jurisdiction is not warranted. 4. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is granted time to vacate the premises till 30.09.2011 and handover possession of the schedule premises to the respondent bank, subject to he filing an undertaking before the learned Rent Controller within three weeks from today, undertaking that during the aforesaid period, he shall pay all the arrears and monthly rents upto date and shall not alienate, transfer or create any third party interest over the schedule property to the detriment of the respondent bank. In default of filing such undertaking as above, the respondent bank shall be at liberty to execute the eviction order in accordance with law without necessity of awaiting for expiry of the time granted herein above. No order as to costs. ______________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J Date: 07.06.2011 Note: Issue CC in one week (B/o) Ivd