( 1 ) THESE three Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of by a common order.

( 2 ) THE interesting question involved in these Civil Revision Petitions is whether the landlord is entitled to seek eviction of the tenants under Section 12 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act,1960 (in short the act ).

( 3 ) THE facts, in brief, are as follows: the landlord filed eviction petitions seeking eviction of the three tenants who were in three shops situated in the North-Eastern corner of the landlord s site on the ground that there was wilful default in payment of rent and also on the ground that the landlord s family has been advised for the last several years that as per Vasthu Sastra on the North-Eastern corner shops should not be constructed and that on account of those shops on the North-Easten corner untold misery and grievance and evil was caused to the family and on account of which the landlord s father and mother were bed-ridden for several years before they passed away and the landlord s health also has been very indifferent for the last several years, therefore, he consulted pandits of the vasthu Sastra and they advised him to remove the three shops on the North-Eastern corner and that it would do good and bring welfare and auspicious period to the family. Therefore, the landlord decided to demolish the three shops on the North-Eastern corner. The tenants filed counter-affidavits denying the allegation of wilful default in payment of rent and also stating that the scheduled building has been in existence for the last 30 years and also denying the right of the landlord to demolish the building. The Rent Controller allowed the eviction petitions holding that the request of the landlord is reasonable and having purchased the property it is for him to deal with the property in his own way and also enjoy the same in his own way and there is no bar under Sec. 12 of the Act for eviction.

( 4 ) ON appeal, the appellate authority confirmed the order, against which the tenants filed the present revisions. Before the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority the landlord gave an assurance that in the event of reconstruction of the shops he would rent out the shops to the same tenants.

( 5 ) I would have dismissed the revisions in view of the concurrent finding of both the Courts below that the landlord is entitled to demolish the building which is a reasonable and bona fide requirement and in view of the assurance given by the landlord that he would rent out the shops in the event of the reconstruction to the tenants. However, in view of the controversy that was raised during the arguments I am dealing with the controversy in detail.

( 6 ) MR. T. Veerabhadrayya, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that Section 12 of the Act is unreasonable and arbitrary as itimposes a restriction on the landlord to let it out to the same tenants in the event of the demolition of the shops on reconstruction. Counsel also submitted that under the Act G. O. Ms. No. 636, G. A. D. (Accommodation), dated 29-12-1983 (in short the G. O. ) was issued exempting the buildings from the provisions of the Act for a period of ten years from the date of construction of the building. Whether the building is newly constructed or constructed after demolition of the existing building it continues to be a new building. No distinction should be made between the building constructed for the first time and the building constructed after demolition of the existing building and, therefore, the G. O. should be extended to the shops which are to be constructed after demolishing the existing structures. If the G. O. is not extended Sec. 12 of the Act is hit by the vice of the arbitrariness and, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of india. The learned Counsel also relied on a number of judgments in support of his contention. The relevant portion of Sec. 12 of the Act reads as follows:-