1. These two civil revision petitions are filed under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (lease, rent and eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter in short referred to as “Act” for the purpose of convenience) by the tenant and the landlords respectively as against the common order made in R.A.No.220 of 2002 and R.A. No.192 of 2002 being aggrieved of the portions of the order and the relief made in R.C.No.476 of 1998 on the file of IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad.

2. In view of the commonality involved in both these civil revision petitions and in the light of the fact that both the R.As. aforesaid also had been disposed of by a common order by the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, the Appellate Authority, these civil revision petitions are being disposed of by a common order by this Court.

3. Heard Smt. Manjiri S Ganu, learned counsel representing tenant and Sri Hanumanthu Rajagopal Rao, learned counsel representing landlords.

4. Smt. Manjiri S Ganu, the learned counsel representing tenant would maintain that the order of eviction made by the Appellate Authority is not in accordance with law. The learned counsel also would maintain that the Appellate Authority had not appreciated that eviction petition had been thought of the landlords after six years after the order in the deposit of rent case Ex.B-29. The learned counsel also would maintain that the landlords never pleaded any ground of alleged failure of Rule 5 (4) in the eviction petition and when that being so the Appellate Authority cannot take aid of the same. The learned counsel also further pointed out to the evidence available on record and specifically pointed out to the chief-examination of P.W.1 and would maintain that there is not even whisper about non-issuance of deposit. The learned counsel also would maintain that the Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the fact that there are no amounts due or payable as on the date of eviction petition inasmuch as the tenant has been complying with Ex.B-29 order throughout. Notwithstanding the said deposit up-to-date, the Appellate Authority ordered eviction on erroneous ground. The learned counsel also pointed out to the oral and documentary evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority and also the learned Rent Controller, the original authority. The learned counsel also pointed out that the suit R.C.No.476 of 1998 was filed praying for eviction of the tenant on the ground of wilful default and the ground of securing alternative accommodation and on the ground of personal requirement. The learned counsel also would maintain that the learned Rent Controller negatived the ground of wilful default, but however, after recording findings at paras 12 and 13 came to the conclusion that the tenant had secured alternative accommodation and recorded further findings at paras 15, 16 and 17 and came to the conclusion that the bona fide personal requirement had been established and accordingly the eviction was ordered. The learned counsel also pointed out that the landlords and tenants, aggrieved by the same, had carried R.A.192 of 2002 and R.A. No.220 of 2002 respectively and the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the learned Rent Controller committed a grave error in ordering eviction on those grounds, but however, came to the conclusion that the ground of wilful default had been made out i.e., for the period from September 1992 till the end of June 1998 for 70 months and accordingly ordered eviction. The learned counsel would maintain that the C.R.P. filed by the landlords being aggrieved of the order negativing the other grounds to be dismissed and the C.R.P. filed by the tenant to be allowed. The learned counsel also would maintain that it may be prerogative of the landlord to choose the mulgi, but there is no plea and there is no evidence and, hence, the burden expected to be by the landlord had not been discharged. Incidentally