( 1 ) IN all these three Revision Petitions common question of facts and law arises and hence, 1 am disposing of the same by this common judgment. I refer to the ranking of the parties as arrayed in the trial Court.

( 2 ) THE proceedings arise under the A. P. Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. (Hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The petitioners in C. R. P. No. 520 of 1992 are the original tenants. They have challenged the order of eviction passed against them on the ground of default in paying arrears of rent in R. C. C. No. 80 of 1983 on the file of the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsiff), Rajahmundry, dated 15/10/1990; before the lower appellate authority i. e. , sub-Judge, Rajahmundry in R. C. A. No. 20 of 1990. To this R. C. A. No. 20 of 1990, the landlord had filed cross-objections challenging the order of the Rent Controller in refusing eviction on the ground of alternative accommodation secured by the tenants. The lower appellate Court dismissed R. C. A. No. 20 of 1990 and allowed the cross-objections and thereby ordered eviction of the tenants not only on the ground of default in paying arrears of rent, but also on the ground that the tenants secured alternative accommodation. Being aggrieved by the same, the tenants filed the petition in C. R. P. No. 520 of 1992.

( 3 ) C. R. P. No. 521 of 1992 is also filed by the tenant. The tenant had filed R. C. C. No. 10 of 1983 before the Rent Controller under Section 8 (5) of the Rent Control Act seeking permission of the Court to deposit the arrears of rent into Court and the said application was rejected. Being aggrieved by the same, the tenant had preferred an appeal before the lower appellate authority in R. C. A. No. 19 of 1990. The lower appellate Court dismissed the same. Hence, the tenant has preferred this C. R. P. No. 521 of 1992 before this Court.

( 4 ) C. R. P. No. 1886 of 1992 is filed by the land-lord. The land-lord had filed a petition before the Rent Controller pleading subsequent default on the part of the tenant in paying the arrears of rent after filing the eviction petition and seeking eviction on that ground also in R. C. C. No. 11 of 1984. The Rent Controller allowed it. Being aggrieved by the same, the tenant preferred an appeal before the lower appellate authority in R. C. A. No. 18 of 1990. The lower appellate authority allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of the Rent Controller passed on R. C. C. No. 11 of 1984 and hence, the landlord has preferred this revision petition in C. R. P. No. 1886 of 1992.

( 5 ) FIRST let me consider C. R. P. Nos. 520 of 1992 and 521 of 1992. These two C. R. Ps. filed by the tenant go together.

( 6 ) THE respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition against the present petitioner-tenant on three grounds namely, the land-lord required the suit premises for bona fide occupation (under Section 3 (a) (iv) (b) of the Act ). (2) That the tenant defaulted in paying the rent to the land-lord (under Section 2 (i) of the Act) and (3) Tenant has secured alternative building (under Section 10 (2) (5) of the Act ). The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition of the land-lord regarding bona fide requirement and alternative accommodation. But, allowed the eviction petition on the ground of default in paying arrears of rent falling due both prior to the filing of the eviction petition and also subsequent to the filing of the eviction petition. Being aggrieved by the said order of eviction, the tenant had preferred R. C. A. No. 20 of 1990 before the lower appellate authority. For that, the land-lord had also preferred cross-objections contending that he was entitled for eviction even on the ground that the tenant had acquired alternative accommodation. The lower appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant and allowed the cross-objections. As a result, there is an order of eviction against the tenant only on two grounds i. e. , on the ground the tenant was in a