Point of Law: While exercising revisional power, the High Court cannot reappreciate the evidence on record: both oral or documentary. Further the consideration while exercising revisional jurisdiction is confined to find out whether the findings of fact rendered by the Court or Authority below were according to law and did not suffer from any error of law.

JUDGMENT :

U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.

The challenge in this C.R.P at the instance of appellant/respondent is to the order dated 01.06.2019 in R.C.A.No.5 of 2018 where under learned Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant/respondent under Section 20 of A.P Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short "the Act"), while confirming the decree and order dated 28.08.2018 in R.C.C.No.1 of 2016 passed by the learned Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tuni directing the eviction of appellant/respondent from the petition scheduled tiled shop room.

2. The parties in this CRP are referred to as they are arrayed in R.C.C.No.1 of 2016 for the sake of convenience.

3. The petitioner is the owner of the petition schedule property, which he let out to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/-. While so, the Tuni Municipality issued notice under Section 231 of A.P. Municipalities Act stating that the building being old and dilapidated one has to be demolished. Respondent filed R.C.C.No.2 of 2015 in the Court of Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tuni seeking a direction to the petitioner to effect repairs to the roof of the leasehold shop, which is pending enquiry. Further case of petitioner is that he is a physically handicapped person and oil manufacturer by caste and so, he wants to carry on the business in oil manufacturing and selling, for which he needed the building for demolition and reconstruction to set up his business. Thus, he required the premises for a bonafide personal occupation. His other buildings were in occupation of tenants. The respondent and her husband have already secured an alternative accommodation and they are in possession of very big godowns for storing cement bags. Hence, the petitioner filed R.C.C.No.1 of 2016 for eviction under Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) (b) and Section 12 of the Act.

(b) The respondent opposed the petition interalia contending that she filed R.C.C.No.2 of 2015 for effecting repairs to the leasehold premises and the same is dragged on by the petitioner purposefully. It is contended that the petition under Section 12 of the Act is not maintainable, as the petitioner did not give an undertaking affidavit that after demolition and reconstruction, he would again let out the premises to the respondent.

It is also contended that the petitioner is in possession of his own non-residential building in Tuni and enjoying those properties. In fact, after filing eviction petition, the petitioner had leased out his another non-residential building to one Karri Ramana for establishing a shop. If really, the petitioner is in bonafide need of the premises, he would not have leased out the shop to Karri Ramana, but ought to have occupied. It is further contended that securing an alternative accommodation by the husband of the respondent does not deprive respondent from continuing in the present building. It is contended that godowns are different from shops, cement will be sold in retail in shops only, but not in godowns. So also there is no possibility of selling the cement in retail in godown. The godowns will not be situated in commercial places and the purchasers of the cement will not come to the godown and they will come to the petition schedule shop alone to purchase the cement. Hence, the petition is not maintainable.

(c) During trial, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A-1 was marked on behalf of petitioner. R.W.1 was examined, but no documents were exhibited on behalf of respondent.

(d) It should be noted that both the Courts below ordered eviction by rendering concurrent findings on the following main observations:

(i) Though the petitioner sought for eviction of respondent under Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) (b) and Section 12 of the Act, the petitioner is not entitled to seek for eviction under Section 12 of the Act for the reason that he failed to give an undertaking affidavit to the effect tha