THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 4737 and 4760 of 2011 Dated: 11-11-2011 Common Order: These revisions are directed against the common order dated 9- 9-2011 of the Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Appellate Court of Rent Control Cases at Visakhapatnam rejecting RCA No. 4 of 2011 preferred by the tenant/revision petitioner against the common order dated 28-2-2011 in R.C.C.Nos. 17 of 2009 and 24 of 2006 respectively on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. For convenience of reference, the revision petitioner is hereinafter described as the tenant and the respondents as the landlords. The landlord filed R.C.C.No. 17 of 2009 before the primary Tribunal under Section 10(2)(i) and 10-C(1)(c) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking eviction of the tenant and delivery of vacant physical possession. R.C.C.No. 24 of 2006 was an application filed by the tenant seeking leave of the Rent Control Court to deposit rents from November 2005 till the disposal of the matter into the Court in respect of the lease demise property. The landlords filed the application for eviction claiming to be of an advanced age of 76 and 72 years respectively and claiming bonafide requirement of the lease demise premises for their personal use; asserting that they want to reconstruct the building in the site by demolishing the existing building which was aged about 40 years for the purpose of constructing residential apartments for use of themselves and their children. The landlords also asserted default in payment of rents by the tenant. Both the primary and Appellate Tribunals under the Act found against the landlords in respect of their claim as to default of rents by the tenant, but found in their favour as regards bonafide requirement of the leased demise premises for their use, particularly in view of the fact that a building permit sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation was also marshalled in evidence. In so far as R.C.C.No. 24 of 2006 presented by the tenant, the same was rejected by the primary Tribunal on the ground that since there was no dispute with regard to the quantum of rent and since eviction of the tenant was ordered in R.C.C.No. 17 of 2009, no case was made out for grant of relief in R.C.C.No. 24 of 2006. The Appellate Court concurred with that view. The tenant was in occupation of a portion of the premises and was running a Medical and General Stores thereat. Earlier the landlord sought eviction of the tenant, inter alia on the ground of personal use and occupation for the purpose of constructing a residential-cum-commercial complex. The primary Tribunal, the Appellate Tribunal and this Court in a revision preferred by the landlord found against the landlord on the premise that an application for demolition of the existing structure in the occupation of the tenant covered by the provisions of the Act, for re-erecting commercial and residential structures, does not fall within the provisions of Section 10- C(1)(c) of the Act. In the present lis, the landlords presented a plea of personal use on the ground of proposing to construct residential apartments in the premises for occupation of themselves and their children. The Court below concurrently found, on assessment of the relevant facts and analysis of the relevant evidence on record that they had established a bonafide personal use falling within the provisions of Section 10-C(1) (c) of the Act. This Court discerns no error in the application of law or in exercise of discretion by the court below, warranting interference under Section 22 of the Act. There are no merits. These writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 11th November, 2011. GRR