THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3896 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 22 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’), against the order and decree dated 17.04.2009 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in R.C.C.M.A.No.100 of 2007, whereby the learned Judge set aside the order and decree dated 08.05.2007 passed by the Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in R.C.C.No.22 of 2004. The petitioner/landlord filed the above R.C.C under Sections 12(5) and 10(2)(v) of the Act seeking eviction of the respondent/tenant from the schedule property for reconstruction. The Rent Controller by order dated 08.05.2007 allowed the R.C.C on the ground of the tenant securing alternative accommodation under Section 10(2)(v) of the Act, which was also admitted by the tenant in his evidence. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant preferred the R.C.C.M.A. The Appellate Authority, after extracting the pleas of both the parties and the grounds of appeal, which in fact need not be a part of the judgment, allowed the appeal setting aside the order passed by the Rent Controller holding that both the parties compromised and the tenant is ready and willing to vacate the schedule premises within one month from the date of the order, and further both the Advocates came to an understanding that after construction of the building, the landlord is ready to give the building for rent to the tenant according to the market value by then, but the learned counsel for the landlord sought permission of one year for construction of the schedule building. Hence, this revision by the landlord. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. The impugned order discloses that there is no application of mind to the facts of the case. The point observed by the Rent Controller that the tenant, on securing the alternative accommodation, is liable to be evicted, is not at all considered by the lower appellate Court. But, as the landlord was not agreed to complete the construction within one year, the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal setting aside the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. In view of the same, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the lower appellant Court to decide the same afresh. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 12.08.2011 va