M. Seetharama Murti, J.

1. This is a civil revision petition under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 ('the Act' for brevity) by the petitioner/tenant assailing the orders dated 14.02.2011 of the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad passed in R.A. No. 133 of 2008 whereby the learned Chief Judge while dismissing the said appeal of the tenant/petitioner herein had confirmed the order of eviction dated 16.05.2008 in R.C. No. 380 of 2004 passed by the learned II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad.

2. The original tenant died during the pendency of the rent control case and her legal heir is the present tenant. In this revision, the parties shall be referred to as the revision petitioner/tenant and the respondent/landlord for convenience and clarity.

3. The introductory facts, which led to the filing of this revision by the tenant, in brief, are as follows:-

"The landlord who is the owner of a double storied building consisting of three mulgies in the ground floor filed three eviction petitions against three of his tenants including the R.C. No. 380 of 2004 against the present tenant who is in occupation of the mulgi bearing No. 15-8-20 in the ground floor of the said building situate at Siddiamberbazar, Hyderabad. The landlord had sought eviction of the tenant on the ground that the building in which schedule mulgi is a part requires demolition and reconstruction as it is in dilapidated condition and as the landlord requires bona fide the schedule mulgi and the other two mulgies in the occupation of two other tenants for commencement of business in novelties, general goods, and other fancy items. The tenant herein had filed a counter and had resisted the eviction petition filed by the landlord. During the course of enquiry before the learned Rent Controller, the landlord and his father were examined as P.Ws. 1 and 2 and exhibits P1 to P7 were marked on the side of the landlord. The husband of the tenant was examined as R.W. 1. No exhibits were marked on the side of the tenant. On merits, the trial court had allowed the eviction petition and had directed the tenant to vacate the schedule mulgi and handover vacant possession of the same to the landlord within three months. The tenant's appeal in R.A. No. 133 of 2008 was dismissed by the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court. Therefore, the tenant is before this court."

4. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the sides. I have perused the material record.

5. Now the points for determination are:-

(1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the eviction petition filed by the landlord under Sections 12 and 10(3)(a)(iii)(b) of the Act is not maintainable?

(2) Whether the landlord had established that he requires the petition schedule mulgi bona fide for his personal occupation?

(3) Whether the landlord had established his pleaded case that he requires the building which is in a dilapidated and dangerous condition for its demolition and reconstruction?

6. The grounds urged in the revision and the submissions made on behalf of the revision petitioner/tenant, in brief, are as follows:-

"The eviction petition filed by the landlord under Sections 12 and 10(3)(a)(iii)(b) of the Act is not maintainable as the two reliefs are mutually contradictory and exclusive. The schedule premises/building is not in a dilapidated condition. The courts below had failed to see that the landlord had not produced any evidence to show that the schedule premises is in dilapidated condition. The courts below had erred in holding that the premises is in a dilapidated condition and requires demolition. The appellate authority erred in holding that the landlord requires the premises bona fide for personal occupation. Even assuming that the building requires demolition and reconstruction, the landlord is bound to give an undertaking as per the provision of Section 12(2) of the Act offering a premises in the reconstru