IMPORTANT POINT
The landlord's bona fide requirement for eviction under the Act is valid, and the tenant's claims of alternative premises do not negate this requirement.

ORDER :

Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J.

1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

"...pleased to set aside the orders dated 05.09.2023 in Rent Control Appeal No. 1 of 2018 on the file for the Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Senior Civil Judge Vizianagaram confirming the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2018 in R.C.C. No. 2 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Junior civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Vizianagaram and allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the orders of the lower courts and pass such order orders..."

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

3. Petitioner herein is the tenant and Respondent is the land lord. It is submitted that the Respondent filed R.C.C. No. 2 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Vizianagaram against the petitioner under Section 10 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short hereinafter "the Act, 1960") for eviction of the petitioner and after trail, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram was pleased to allow the RCC and directing the petitioner to vacate the suit schedule property by judgment and decree dated 01.10.2018. Then, the petitioner preferred Rent Control Appeal No. 1 of 2018 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority-Cum-Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram vide Rent Control Appeal No. 1 of 2018 and the said Appeal was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 05.09.2023, granting three months' time to the petitioner to vacate and hand over the vacant premises.

4. The Respondent filed vacate stay petition along with an affidavit on behalf of the Respondent wherein it is stated that the Respondent who is a land lord of the subject commercial complex had filed R.C.C. No. 2 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Vizianagaram seeking eviction of tenant from the subject petitioner schedule property on the ground of bonafide personal requirement to conduct his own business. After having trial and arguments, the trial Court was pleased to allow the application of the petitioner therein/respondent herein by its decree and judgment dated 01.10.2018 and ordered for eviction of the petitioner herein/tenant.

5. It is further stated that the petitioner herein/tenant carried the judgment and decree in R.C.C. No. 2 of 2013 by way of appeal vide R.C.A. No. 1 of 2018. After hearing both the counsel the Hon'ble Appellate Court was pleased to dismiss the appeal vide decree and judgment dated 05.09.2023, against which the petitioner preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the RCC petition filed by the Respondent at Court below for eviction of the petitioner herein on the ground that his sons are the unemployees and he wants to settle them in business in his own premises for that the premises under occupation of the petitioner is suitable for carrying their own business. He further submits that the Respondent is the owner of the non-residential building situated at M.G. Road consisting of Ground and First floor. They are fourteen (14) shops in the ground floor and two (02) shops in the first floor. Admittedly, the petitioner is the lease holder of the shops in ground floor.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Respondents herein is in occupation of one vacant shop at first floor of his own complex, as such he is not entitled for any direction for eviction of the petitioner as per Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, 1960. He further submits that the Respondent herein failed to prove the bonafide requirement of the shop of the petitioner. The respondent cannot get evict the petitioner as per his whims and fancies under the pretext of bonafide requirement of personal occupation and the respondent failed to establish the genuine bonafide requirement. Once the respondent herein failed to discharge his burden of proving bonafide requirement, the Respondent is not