HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4242 OF 2009 DATE:14-10-2011 BETWEEN Addagalla Nageswara Rao …Petitioner AND Ayyanki Venkata Satya Bala Prasada Rao …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4242 OF 2009 ORDER: Tenant filed this revision under Section 22 of the Rent (Lease, Eviction and Control) Act, 1960 (for brevity ‘Act’) aggrieved by the orders of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada dated 8.7.2009 in dismissing R.C.C.M.A.No.157 of 2008 confirming the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in R.C.C.No.6 of 2003 dated 9.6.2008. The respondent herein is the landlord and the petitioner herein is the tenant. The landlord filed the R.C.C. seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement and willful default and alleging that the tenant sub-let the premises and used the premises for the purpose other than for which it was leased, committed acts of waste, secured alternative accommodation and that the landlord is occupied only part of the building and that he wants to occupy the whole or remaining part of the building. The tenant resisted the R.C.C. by filing a counter and denying the allegation of willful default and sub- letting the premises and committing the acts of waste. He denied the allegation of his shifting the business from the premises and sub- letting the premises. He contended that the requirement of the premises by the landlord is not bona fide. In order to prove their case, necessary evidence has been let in by the parties. On behalf of the landlord P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. On behalf of the tenant, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked. The Rent Controller having considered the evidence, both oral and documentary, held hat the landlord required the premises for additional accommodation and his requirement is bona fide and accordingly ordered for eviction of the tenant. Aggrieved by the same, tenant carried the matter in appeal. The lower appellate Court on re- appreciation of the evidence held that the evidence of tenant-R.W.1 clearly shows that he had shifted his business from the premises to his own building situated at Besent Road, Eluru Rod corner and that he is not doing business in the petition schedule building and that his brother is doing business therein. Further from the evidence of R.Ws.1 to 3 it is clear that the tenant and his brothers have no connections with regard to their business, they are doing separate business and living separately. There is no jointness in respect of anything. Therefore, it can be said that the tenant sub-let the building to his brother and shifted his business to some other building. The personal requirement of the premises by the landlord as held by the Controller is bona fide. Since the landlord is a retired employee of the State Government, he has a special right to claim eviction of the tenant from the leased building on the ground that he was retired from service and the building is required for his personal occupation. Holding so, the lower appellate authority upheld the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent. Sri C. Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-tenant contends that as the landlord secured alternative accommodation by evicting another tenant his bona fide requirement ceases and therefore, he is not entitled for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement of the premises. Both the Courts below concurrently held that the tenant has not committed any default and has not sub-let the premises and therefore, when the bona fide requirement ceases, the confirmation of the eviction order passed by the lower appellate authority is erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside. It is now fairly well settled that when the landlord has secured an alternative accommodation during the pendency of the eviction proceedings, his bona fide requirement ceases unless it is established that he also requires the additional accommodation including the premises in respect of which he sought for eviction. But the tenant ceased to occupy the petition schedule premises, which is admitted by himself as R.W.1 and he shifted his business and continuing his business in his own building and that his brothers are permitted by him to do the business in the petition schedule premises and that he has no connection with the said premises. Therefore, the lower appellate authority took the same into consideration and rightly held that the landlord is entitled to seek eviction on the ground that the tenant ceased to occupy the premises. Further under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act, a landlord who is occupying only a part of a building, whether residential or non-residential may, notwithstanding anything in clause (a), apply to the Controller for an order directing any tenant occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part of the building to put the landlord in possession thereof, if he requires additional accommodation for residential purposes or for the purpose of a business which he is carrying on, as the case may be. Therefore, the right conferred on the landlord to seek eviction under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act is not controller notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (a) of Section 10(3) of the Act. Therefore, the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller as confirmed by the lower appellate authority does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. The revision is accordingly dismissed. The tenant is granted four months time for vacating the premises subject to payment of all arrears of rent till 31.12.2010 and continuing to pay the rent thereafter at the rate of Rs.500/- per month and he shall deposit all arrears of rent till September, 2011 on or before 15.10.2011 and from the month of October, 2011 onwards he shall continue to pay the rents on or before 10th of every succeeding month. He shall also file an undertaking before the Rent Controller to the effect that he would vacate and handover the possession of the premises to the landlord by the end of February, 2012. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. OCTOBER 14, 2011 Tsr.