THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2982 of 2006 O R D E R: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment and decree in C.M.A.No.27 of 2003 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority- cum-Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku dated 04.04.2006. The factual back ground for the dispute is that the respondent herein filed R.C.C.No.4 of 1996 before the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku for eviction of the revision petitioner herein from the petition schedule shop on grounds of wilful default in payment of rents, bona fide personal requirement, acts of waste and damage committed by the revision petitioner etc., The revision petitioner resisted the claim, denying any default in payment of rents or the existence of any bona fide personal requirement for the landlady or committing any acts of waste or damage. The revision petitioner contended that after divorce of the respondent herein, the two daughters and one son of the respondent herein are living with the respondent’s husband and the respondent herein is alone living in the house behind the petition schedule shop, which is hence not at all required for the personal requirement of the landlady. The Rent Controller had examined PWs 1 to 3 and R.Ws 1 to 3 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.4 and Exs.B.1 to B.16 during the enquiry and considered the questions of wilful default and bona fide requirement in his order dated 18.08.2003. The Rent Controller concluded in favour of the landlady on both the counts and in respect of bona fide personal requirement of the landlady, the Rent Controller accepted the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 about the intention of the landlady to carry on the business of knitting chairs and baskets with plastic wire and also start business for her son in the premises. The Rent Controller rejected the contention that occupation of another residential premises by the landlady has to be considered as availability of non-residential accommodation also and so far as the comparative inconvenience is concerned, the Rent Controller tilted in favour of the landlady, a divorced woman with an unemployed deaf and dumb son to be looked after. Consequently, the Rent Controller directed delivery of vacant possession of the schedule property within three months from the date of the order. In C.M.A.No.27 of 2003 against the said order before the Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku, the impugned judgment was pronounced on 04.04.2006 in which the appellate Authority differed with the Rent Controller in respect of proof of wilful default in payment of rents and held against the landlady. Similarly, the appellate Authority also ruled against the landlady on the questions of the alleged acts of waste and damage by the tenant. However, in respect of the bona fide personal requirement, the appellate Authority refused to act upon the admission of the landlady in her evidence about construction of a two storied building subsequent to the petition, in which she was residing in the first floor and leased out the ground floor for a wine shop, as subsequent events erasing any such necessity or requirement. Recognizing the right of the landlady to choose the premises suitable for her business, with reference to the principles laid down in the precedents cited before it, the appellate Authority observed that it is the specific case of the landlady that the schedule property is most convenient for her plastic wire knitting business as the small lane available is not sufficient for the customers to reach the business place, which establishes her bona fide requirement. Comparative hardship to the parties was also considered by the appellate Authority to be more in favour of the landlady who proved that her 17 year old deaf and dumb son was living with her for whom she intends to start a new business. The appellate Authority refused to recognize any hardship caused to the tenant to be overweighing the bona fide requirement of the landlady and consequently confirmed the order of eviction giving a further time of three months to the tenant to vacate. The said order is under challenge in this revision contending that the construction of a two storied building by the landlady subsequent to the filing of the Rent Control petition in which the ground floor was let out to a wine shop was not properly appreciated by the Courts below and the comparative hardship caused to the tenant ought to have been taken into account. The tenant, therefore, desired the order of eviction to be reversed. Sri P.V.Sanjeeva Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri P.V.S.S.S.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the respondent are heard. It should be first noted that the landlady, who failed before the appellate Authority in proving wilful default in payment of rent and acts of waste and damage as positive grounds for eviction did not appear to have challenged the same in any further proceedings and the said findings of the appellate Court have become final leaving only the claim of bona fide personal requirement of the landlady as the solitary basis for ordering the eviction. The question whether such bona fide personal requirement has been probablised by the evidence on record has been found in favour of the landlady both by the Rent Controller and the appellate Authority and very strong and compelling reasons are required for the High Court to deviate from the concurrent findings on fact, more so, when the Rent Controller had also the benefit of observing the demeanour of the witnesses in flesh and blood. Even otherwise, it is not in dispute that the landlady is a divorcee and her two daughters were married and living with their husbands. Though the tenant disputed the same, the Courts below found that the 17 year old deaf and dumb son of the landlady is living with the respondent herein and it is the stated intention of the landlady to utilize the petition schedule shop for purpose of starting some business for her son apart from also using it for the purposes of her wire knitting work for knitting chairs and baskets with plastic wire. Her claims were corroborated by PWs 2 and 3 and also by Ex.A.4 bunch of receipts about purchase of plastic wire in bulk. Though Ex.A.4 was subsequent to filing of the Rent Control Petition, the same was considered as probablising the continuance of her profession by the landlady and the comparative inconvenience was found more to the landlady than the tenant by the Rent Controller. The appellate Authority also recognized that the landlord is the best Judge to identify the bona fide requirement and has complete freedom in choosing the right accommodation in his perception. The principle that the landlord is the best Judge of his requirement is universally accepted and the conclusions of fact arrived at by the appellate Authority based on the evidence adduced by the parties do not appear to be perverse or unreasonable in any manner. Therefore, the conclusions about existence of a bona fide personal requirement for the landlady justifying the eviction of the tenant have to be upheld. The restricted revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised against the concurrent findings of the Courts below in this regard. However it is seen from the material on record that the tenant is carrying on business in the premises since about 30 years and the inconvenience to which he is subjected to on being forced to vacate was noted both by the Rent Controller and also the appellate Authority, though they considered the inconvenience that may be caused to the landlady in the absence of an order of eviction to overweigh the same. Sri P.V.Sanjeeva Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that in the event of the Court not agreeing with his contentions, the tenant would require reasonable time to vacate the premises on securing alternative accommodation for the business in the meanwhile and otherwise the livelihood of the tenant will be prejudicially affected. Balancing the rights of the landlady and the tenant, grant of six months to the tenant to vacate the premises can be considered reasonable and just on the facts and circumstances of the case. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs and the revision petitioner is granted six months time from today to vacate and deliver possession of the subject premises to the landlady. _____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J 22nd July, 2010. PNV