HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.No. 1065 of 2009 DATE: 23-12-2010 Between: Deepala Purna Venkata Sambasiva Rao Alias Sankar Rao …….. petitioner and Janjanam Sarojini and another …….. respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.No. 1065 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner, who is the tenant, filed this Revision Petition under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, inter alia, seeking to assail the eviction order, dated 17-12- 2008 passed in R.C.A.No.2 of 2008 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Senior Civil Judge), Mangalagiri, confirming the order, dated 06-10-2004 passed in R.C.C.No.1 of 2002 on the file of the Rent Controlling Officer (Principal Junior Civil Judge), Mangalagiri. Brief facts are that admittedly the premises in question is a non- residential one and the respondents herein have filed the eviction petition seeking eviction of the petitioner on several other grounds including willful default in payment of rent etc., however, the ground, which has been accepted by the Courts below, is the bona fide requirement of the premises. During the course of enquiry before the Rent Controller, both the parties produced their evidence. On behalf of the respondents herein, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-13 were got marked. On behalf of the petitioner herein, RWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-8 were got marked. The Rent Controller, after considering the entire evidence and other material, found that there is bona fide requirement at the instance of the respondents herein and they are entitled to seek eviction. On appeal by the petitioner herein, the appellate authority once again considered the entire facts and circumstances and agreed with the reasons and finding given by the Rent Controller and upheld the order of the Rent Controller once again holding that the requirement is bona fide and accordingly, dismissed the Appeal. Hence the Revision Petition. Heard both sides. Having regard to the concurrent finding of fact arrived by both the Courts below, which is purely based on the evidence and other material on record, and further as nothing is forthcoming on behalf of the petitioner to dispel the same, I do not find any warrant to interfere with the impugned order. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Three months time from today is granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises. No order as to costs. _________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J Date: 23-12-2010 YCR