ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the appellant/tenant under Section 22 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (in short ‘the Act’) against the orders passed by learned Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, in R.C.A. No. 11 of 2012 wherein and whereby learned appellate Judge reversed the decision of learned Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, in R.C.C. No. 16 of 2010, which petition filed by the respondent/landlord for eviction of first petitioner/appellant under Section 12 of the Act and ordered for eviction of the first petitioner/tenant and passed decree which reads as under:

“(i) that this appeal be and the same is hereby allowed through out with costs.

(ii) that the order and decretal order dated 21.06.2012 passed in R.C.C. No. 16 of 2010 on the file of the learned Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore is hereby set-aside.

(iii) that the respondent/tenant be and hereby is directed to vacate the schedule mentioned premises and put the same in possession of the appellant/landlord within two (2) months from the date of this order.

(iv) that failing which, the appellant/landlord be at liberty to get it done through process of law.

(v) that on completion of construction of new building, the appellant/landlord should offer the same to the respondent/tenant for rent as per Ex.P-6 undertaking given by him.

(vi) that respondent/tenant do pay the appellant/landlord a sum of Rs. 2,055/- (Since the petitioner/landlord did not file costs memo in R.C.C. No. 16/2010 before the lower court) being the costs of the appeal and do bear his own costs of Rs. 2,052/-.”

2. During the pendency of this civil revision petition, the first petitioner/tenant died and his legal representatives added as petitioners 2 to 7 vide orders in I.A. No. 3 of 2020 dated 26.02.2020.

3. The petitioners and respondent hereinafter referred to as tenants and landlord for the sake of brevity and convenience.

4. Before the Rent Controller, landlord filed petition under Section 12 of the Act stating that tenant is residing in the plaint schedule non-residential shop room and when tenant committed willful default in payment of rents, he filed R.C.C. No. 2 of 1985, which was allowed on 27.11.1990, but against which, tenant preferred R.C.A. No. 24 of 1990 before Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, which was dismissed on 17.01.1995. Against the said order, tenant filed C.R.P. No. 375 of 1996 before this Court, which was allowed and then landlord preferred Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Apex Court, which was dismissed on 22.02.1999, due to that tenant is continuing in possession of plaint schedule shop room. It is the contention of landlord that plaint schedule shop room became old, which is in dilapidated condition which has to be demolished and a new building has to be constructed in its place, for such purpose, he required possession of the building and he also gave undertaking that after reconstruction of the new building, he will offer the premises to the tenant and prays to direct the tenant to vacate from plaint schedule shop room.

5. For which, tenant filed counter before the Rent Controller denying the contention of the landlord stating that petition schedule premises was constructed with iron beams in the roof and it is a terraced building which is perfectly in good condition which does not require demolition but landlord filed petition to harass him.

6. Before the Rent Controller, landlord himself examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 whereas tenant examined himself as RW-1 and also examined one of the residents of town as RW-2. The learned Rent Controller after hearing both sides by following precedent law in B. Suresh Babu vs. T. Ramakrishnaiah, 2005 (5) ALT 672 dismissed the petition filed by landlord on the ground that no document is produced by the landlord that he obtained approval of municipal plan for construction of any new