( 1 ) THE petitioner herein was the tenant (hereinafter referred to as the Tenant ) and the respondents herein were the landlords (hereinafter referred to as the landlords ). The respondents-landlords had instituted RCCNo. 158 of 1992 in the Court of the in Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad for evicting the tenant from the petition schedule premises on the ground that the tenant has secured alternative accommodation. The said RCC was filed by the landlords under Section 10 (2) (v) of Andhrapradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. On evidence the learned Rent Controller found that the tenant did acquire alternative residential premises and the premises, which was leased out by the landlords, have been kept locked and therefore the Rent Controller was pleased to direct the tenant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the petition schedule premises within 30 days and was also directed to pay costs of Rs. 500. 00to the landlords. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of eviction, the tenant carried the matter in appeal under Section 20 (1) of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 in the Court of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The learned Judge on hearing both the parties was pleased to dismiss the appeal. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present civil revision petition is filed by the tenant.

( 2 ) THE learned Counsel Mr R. V. Subba Rao, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenant submitted at the Bar that on evidence it stands proved that the tenant-petitioner herein has not acquired the premises of his own but his wife purchased the building in her own name and therefore the order of eviction passed by both the Courts below is not maintainable in law. The learned Counsel invited my attention to Section 10 (2) (v) of the said Rent Control Act, which reads as under : " (v) that the tenant has secured alternative building or ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause, or. . . ,,. ,"with this provision the learned Counsel Mr. R. V, Siibba Rao submitted at the Bar that the law requires the tenant himself must secure alternative accommodation and he must cease to occupy the building which is leased out to him by the landlord.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel Mr. R. V. Subba Rao further submitted at the Bar that it may be a fact that for purchasing the building/premises, the tenant must have spent money out of his pocket and the building might have been purchased in the name of his wife. But that fact cannot be taken into consideration because the tenant has not acquired the alternative premises of his own and secondly the benarni transaction is prohibited under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and under the provisions of the said Act, the tenant has no right to say that though the property purchased in the name of his wife, the property belongs to him; such defence is not available to the tenant though the transaction is held to be benami, the wife of the tenant has become absolute owner of the said property and therefore the tenant cannot recover possession from his own wife and therefore it must be held that the tenant has not secured the alternative premises of his own.

( 4 ) IT was further submitted by the learned Counsel Mr. Subba Rao for the tenant-petitioner herein that there has been an agreement between the parties and with the agreement the tenant and his wife are residing separately. The tenant has no concern whatsoever with the residential premises acquired by his wife.

( 5 ) WHILE rebutting the aforesaid arguments, the learned Counsel Sml C. Jayasree Sarathy appearing on behalf of the landlords-respondents herein submitted at the Bar that the defence taken by the tenant is no legal defence. An agreement to slay separately has been brought into existence only to evade the provisions of the Rent Control Act and only to harass (he landlords in not handi