THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2041 of 2008 ORDER: This revision under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (‘the Act’ for brevity) is directed against the order dated 18.02.2008 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, in R.A.No.261 of 2006, whereby the order dated 30.08.2006 passed by the learned IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, in R.C.No.87 of 2003, granting eviction was confirmed. The petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord. The landlord filed R.C.No.87 of 2003 seeking eviction of the tenant on the grounds of - (i) willful default, (ii) causing damage to the property, (iii) change of user, and (iv) personal requirement. The R.C. was resisted by the tenant by filing a detailed counter and denying the allegations made in the R.C. On behalf of the landlord, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-33 were marked. On behalf of the tenant, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-14 were marked. The learned Rent Controller, after consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the entire evidence, allowed the R.C. on all the grounds granting eviction, by order dated 30.08.2006. Aggrieved thereby, the tenant filed R.A.No.261 of 2006 before the learned Chief Judge. The appellate Court, after examination of the entire material placed before it and perusal of the order of the learned Rent Controller, though did not agree with the findings of the learned Rent Controller insofar as the grounds of willful default and damage caused to the property are concerned, on the other grounds i.e., change of user and personal requirement, the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller were confirmed and accordingly, the eviction order passed by the learned Rent Controller was upheld, by order dated 18.02.2008. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the tenant. The learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant submits that the appellate Court failed to consider the distinction between Section 10 (3) (c) and Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act and there was no personal requirement of the shop in question or any change of user. Therefore, the findings recorded by the appellate Court confirming the order passed by the learned Rent Controller insofar as the grounds of change of user and personal requirement are concerned warrants interference by this Court. The learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submits that there are absolutely no grounds to interference with the findings of the learned Rent Controller as well as the appellate Court. I have given my earnest consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant has drawn the attention of this Court to the admission made by P.W.1 – landlord stating that apart from the shop in question, entire building is available with him and contended that in view of the above admission, the question of personal requirement does not arise. Insofar as the ground of change of user is concerned, it is stated that the tenant was running a tea depot in the shop in question and was using a part of it as ice cream parlour and therefore, it cannot be said that there is change of user. These are all pure questions of fact, which cannot be considered by this Court. A perusal of the orders of the Courts below shows that they elaborately discussed each and every aspect of the matter to conclude that there is personal requirement for the landlord and change of user. Nothing contrary to what has been found by the Courts below has been brought to the notice of this Court and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The petitioner/tenant is granted three months time from today to deliver vacant possession of the shop in question to the respondent/landlord. No costs. ________________ (C.V. RAMULU, J) 23rd March, 2010 GHN