( 1 ) QUESTIONING the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in cma No. 2 of 1995 dated 20-7-2000 both the tenant and the landlady filed CRP no. 4138 of 2000 and CRP No. 3044 of 2001 respectively to the extent the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority went against their interest.

( 2 ) AS both the revision petitions relate to same mulgi bearing No. 10-5-40, seshapriya Street, Chittoor, they can be disposed of by a common judgment.

( 3 ) THE parties are referred to as the tenant and the landlady for brevity.

( 4 ) APART from the general issues that arise for consideration in these revisions, an issue of general importance i. e. , whether the landlord can seek eviction of a tenant from a non-residential building both for residential and non-residential purposes has to be decided.

( 5 ) THE landlady after exchange of notices, filed RCC No. 3 of 1993 on the file of the Principal District Munsif-cum-Rent controller, Chittoor, seeking eviction of the tenant from the demised premises under section 10 (3xa) (i") of the Andhra Pradesh buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act, 1960 (for short the Act ) on the ground that she requires the premises for her residential purpose and also for doing business to maintain herself and her daughter of marriageable age and also on the ground that the building requires extensive repairs.

( 6 ) IN the light of the averments made in the petition, I feel that the application seeking eviction would have been filed under section 12 (4) of the Act rather than under section 12-A of the Act.

( 7 ) THE averment in the petition is as follows:"the petition schedule premises is suitable both for residence and running a shop as business premises. The petitioner has been requesting the respondent to vacate the premises to facilitate her to carry out extensive repairs, re-constructions and alterations to suit for her residence and business purpose".

( 8 ) EVICTION of a tenant can be sought under Section 12a of the Act for effecting repairs but the tenant shall be re-inducted into the possession of the building. Under section 12 (4) of the Act, the landlord can seek recovery of possession of a building for effecting repairs and alterations, etc. , but he cannot convert a residential building into a non-residential building or a non- residential building into a residential building unless such a conversion is permitted by the Rent Controller at the time of passing to be verified an order under sub-section (1) section 12 of the Act.

( 9 ) IN the light of the above legal position, since the landlady wants to effect certain repairs to the demised building to suit for her residence as well as for business purpose, she would have an application under section 12 (4) of the Act.

( 10 ) BEFORE going into the merits of the case, I must place on record that the purpose and intendment of the Act is to help the tenant who is subjected to uncalled for litigation. Due to scarcity of accommodation in urban areas and gradual raise in rents due to appreciation of value of the urban property, the landlords were found to be exploiting the situation for their unjustified personal gains. At the same time the act is intended to safeguard the legitimate interest of the landlords and thereby preserve the social environment and promote social justice. The provisions of the Act are, therefore, not required to be interpreted in a hyper technical manner in which case it may result in frustrating the object of the legislation as held by the Supreme court while explaining the purport and intendment of the Act in Liaqahmed and others v. Habeeb-ur-Rehman, (2000 (5) scc 708 ).

( 11 ) I am of the view that as the days passed by, the unscrupulous tenants taking advantage of the provisions of the Act are making the landlords, who claim recovery of possession on genuine grounds, to run from pillar to post to recover possession of the building. Hence, now time is ripe for the Court to look into the interests