( 1 ) THESE three revisions arise out of proceedings under the Andhra pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, hereinafter called the Rent Act. The tenant is the petitioner.

( 2 ) THE facts may be briefly stated : M/s. Hindustan Builderswhich is a registered partnership firm is the landlord. They have purchased the suit premises under a registered sale deed dated 25-7-1974 Ex. P-2. They filed R. C. No. 339 of 1976 for eviction on the grounds (1) wilful default in payment of rent for 24 months from 1-8-1974 to 31-7-1976 at Rs. 450/- per month and (2) that the premises is required by them for immediate demolition and reconstruction. During the pendency of R. C. No. 339 of 1976 the second eviction petition R. C. No. 655 of 1977 was filed on the sole ground of wilful default in payment of rent for 4 months from September, 1977 to december, 1977.

( 3 ) THE defence of the tenant is two-fold : (1) That the tenant was dispossessed from a portion of rear compound and out houses and there was no fixation of rent after M/s. Hindustan builders purchased the property, that in fact, the tenant tendered the rent for July and August, 1974 to Shamlal Gupta, P. W. 2 who is one of the partners of the Firm, but he refused to receive the same and the amount of rs. 1350/- sent on 4-10-1974 under two Money Orders Exs. B-4 and B-5 was refused. (2) That the requirement of the landlord for demolition and reconstruction is not bona fide.

( 4 ) ON a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adducedbefore him and after taking into consideration laches on the part of the tenant in payment of rent even during the pendency of the eviction petition, the Rent Controller held that the tenant committed wilful default and the requirement of the landlord is bona fide and the landlord is entitled to possession on both the grounds. However, the landlord was directed to give an undertaking as required under Section 12 of the Act.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the orders of eviction passed in R. C. Nos. 339 of1976 and 655 of 1977, the tenant preferred two appeals R. A. Nos. 94 and 95 of 1981. The landlord preferred R. A. No. 108 of 1981 against the direction of the Rent Controller requiring him to give an undertaking that the building would be offered to the tenant after reconstr uction.

( 6 ) BEFORE the Appellate Authority, who is a District Judge, threepoints arose for consideration : (1) Whether there was any wilful default on the part of the tenant? (2) Whether the landlord is entitled for an order of eviction on the grounds of demolition and reconstruction ? (3) If so, whether the landlord should give an undertaking as required under Section 12 of the Act ?

( 7 ) BY a common order dated 29-11-1985, the Chief Judge, Citysmall Causes Court, Hyderabad disposed of the three appeals. The Appellate judge confirmed the finding of the Rent Controller that the tenant has committed wilful default. The Appellate Judge rejected the plea of the tenant that he offered the rent and the landlord refused to receive the same and found that the tenant had committed wilful default both before and after the filing of the petition. The Appellate Judge also found that the landlord requires the building for demolition and reconstruction and consequently dismissed the appeals filed by the tenant. The landlord s appeal against the direction to give an undertaking was allowed on the ground that since eviction was ordered on the ground of wilful default also, no undertaking was necessary. Aggrieved thereby, the tenant has filed these three revisions.

( 8 ) IN the first instance, the revisions came up for hearing before alearned Single Judge of this Court, who referred the same to a Division bench on the ground that the questions involved are of great importance.

( 9 ) MR. Chalta Sitaramayya, the learned Counsel for the petitionerraised the following contentions :- (1) The tenant is entitled to suspension of rent when he is dispossessed from a portion of the