THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2185 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 30.05.2011 passed in R.C.A. No. 19 of 2010 by the Appellate Authority under Rent Control Act (I Additional Senior Civil Judge), Rajahmundry, confirming the orders dated 10.11.2010 passed in R.C.C. No. 3 of 2008 by the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Rent Controller for the sake of convenience. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of this revision, are as follows. The petitioner is a retired IAS Officer. He retired from service on 31.01.2007. The petition schedule premises is in ground floor and a part of his house bearing D.No.45-22-22 situated at Rajahmundry. Except the said house, the petitioner has no other residential premises in Rajahmundry. He hails from Rajahmundry. After retirement, he wanted to stay at Rajahmundry. The petitioner has got two sons and two daughters who frequently visit him and they require separate rooms for their stay. His case is that he became old and that his wife is also suffering from ill-health. So, he cannot climb the steps and required the premises available in the ground floor i.e., the petition schedule premises, which is in occupation of the respondent. The respondent is practicing as an advocate at Rajahmundry and now he is said to be the President of Bar Association, Rajahmundry. It is also the case of the petitioner that he is having agricultural lands in East Godavari and, therefore, he would personally look after the agriculture. The respondent resisted the petition and disputed the contentions of the petitioner. He filed O.S.No.1086 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, and obtained interim injunction against the petitioner. There is a dispute with regard to the quantum of payment of rents. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner has settled at Hyderabad and he has no intention to settle at Rajahmundry. The learned Rent Controller, through the impugned orders in R.C.C.No.3 of 2008, ordered eviction of the respondent/tenant. Though it appears that the petitions under Section 8 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for brevity ‘the Act’) were also initiated in R.C.C.No.2 of 2008, we are not concerned with those proceeding, though common orders have been passed. The eviction order passed by the Rent Controller has been confirmed by the appellate authority. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed by the tenant. Sri T.S. Anand, learned counsel appearing for the tenant, submitted that the petitioner/landlord claimed the eviction of respondent from the petition schedule premises on the ground that he is having agricultural lands near Ramannapalem village of Gokavaram Mandal and that he wanted to live with his wife and attend cultivation of the lands, but now, since he has already sold away the lands in November 2009, the need does not subsist. It is also contended that the petitioner wanted the premises to reside at Rajahmundry along with his wife, but his wife died on 28.04.2009, and since the grounds on which the landlord wanted to evict the tenant are no more available to him and since the Court can take into consideration the subsequent events, the orders passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, he has relied on a decision reported in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. The Motor and General Traders[1]. His next submission is that though the matter was initially pending before the Principal Rent Controller, but the learned District Judge, Rajahmundry, has passed orders transferring this case to the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge Court, Rajahmundry and that the District Judge has no power under the provisions of the Rent Control Act and that the High Court of A.P., alone is having power to transfer the matters under Rule 12 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Rules. On the other hand, Sri M.S. Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the landlord, submitted that the petitioner/landlord who is retired officer has invoked Section 10-B of the Act and, therefore, the other grounds raised by him, as required under Section 10 of the Act, need not be considered. Therefore, the subsequent events that the landlord has sold away the lands or that his wife died cannot come in the way of the landlord seeking eviction of the tenant under Section 10-B of the Act. His next submission is that on administrative grounds RCA was transferred from the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Rajahmundry, to the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, by the orders of the District Judge, and since the tenant has not challenged the said orders, they attained finality and, therefore, now he cannot take that ground, more over no prejudice has been caused to him by transferring the said RCA. The only point that arises for consideration is whether there are any reasons to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below. The findings of the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority that due to the old age of the petitioner, he cannot reside in the first floor and that his children require separate rooms for their stay and that the petitioner is in need of the petition schedule premises for his occupation are not seriously disputed. Section 10-B of the Act is as follows. “10-B. Right to recover immediate possession to accrue to employee of State or Central Government:- (1) Where the landlord is a retired employee of the State or Central Government, and the premises let out by him, his spouse or his dependent son or daughter are required for his own use, such employee may, within one year from the date of his retirement or within a period of one year from the date of commencement of this Act, whichever is later, apply to the Court for recovering immediate possession of such premises. (2) Where the landlord is an employee of the State or Central Government and has a period of less than one year preceding the date of his retirement and the premises let out by him, his spouse or his dependent son or daughter are required by him for his own use after his retirement, he may, at any time within a period of one year before the date of his retirement, apply to the Court for recovering immediate possession of such premises. (3) Where the landlord, his spouse or his dependent son or daughter referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) has let out more than one premises, it shall be open to him, his spouse or his dependent son or daughter, as the case may be, to make an application under that sub-section in respect of only one of the premises chosen by him.” The above said provision has been made with a view to see that a retired employee of the State or Central Government, who has let out his premises and which is required by him for his own use, can recover the possession of the same immediately without any delay. The legislature, with a view to give relief to the retired employees, made this special provision. The legislative intent should be kept in view. It is sufficient if the landlord proves that the petition schedule premises are required for his own use. It is settled law that a tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord in what manner he should use his building. Moreover, the contention of the petitioner that he cannot climb steps and that his children often visit him and that they require separate rooms for their stay are not in dispute. When a claim has been made under Section 10-B of the Act, there is no need for him to prove the other grounds that are available to a landlord under Section 10 of the Act. Therefore, even if the contention of the tenant is correct that the landlord has sold away the agricultural lands or that his wife died subsequent to filing of the petition, on such subsequent events, the claim of the petitioner cannot be rejected. As far as the transfer of the case from the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Rajahmundry to the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, is concerned, it is admitted case that the said order passed by the learned District Judge are not challenged by the tenant till this date. Moreover, nothing has been stated or argued that the said transfer of the appeal from the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Rajahmundry, to the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge Court, Rajahmundry, has caused any prejudice to the tenant. Therefore, It is not necessary to decide whether the District Judge has power to transfer Rent Control Appeal pending before one appellate authority to another appellate authority in this matter. Similarly, there is no need to decide the issue whether a landlord can invoke section 10(B) of the Act simultaneously in this case. It has to be seen that the petitioner is a retired officer. He retired from service on 31.01.2007. His wife died on 28.04.2009. He should be allowed to lead his peaceful retired life. This Court and the Apex Court have been insisting the trial Courts to give preference to the cases of senior citizens. Every effort has to be made to see that the cases of senior citizens are disposed of as early as possible. It is also necessary to observe that whenever the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority have to deal with the petitions filed under Section 10(A) or 10(B) of the Act, they must keep the legislative intent in their mind and see that the matters are disposed of as expeditiously as possible. It is always better if such applications are disposed of within a period of three months and not later than six months. The parties and their counsel should assist the Court in this regard. Admittedly, the petitioner/landlord has no other residential premises in Rajahmundry, which is his native place. Therefore, I am of the considered view that there are no grounds to interfere with the well reasoned orders passed by the Courts below. The CRP is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. At this stage, it is represented that, this Court, on 17.06.2011, while admitting the CRP, granted 60 days time to the tenant to vacate the premises, vide orders passed in CRPMP No.3066 of 2011 in CRP No.2185 of 2011. The said order reads as follows:- “Subject to the petitioner/tenant furnishing an undertaking, by an affidavit, within one week from today, that he will vacate the schedule premises within sixty (60) days from the date of undertaking, there shall be stay of eviction. In default of furnishing undertaking, as stated above, the stay will be rescinded automatically. Notice.” In pursuant to the said orders, the undertaking was given on 22.06.2011 and now the period of 60 days, granted by this Court, expired by 21.08.2011. However, at the request of learned counsel for the tenant, the tenant may be granted at least 15 days time to vacate the premises. Accordingly, the CRP is dismissed. The tenant is directed to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the petition schedule premises to the landlord by 07.09.2011. However, in the circumstances, no costs. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 23.08.2011 Nsr/Bvv [1] AIR 1975 SC 1409