( 1 ) THE unsuccessful tenant in both the courts below is the revision petitioner. The landlord-tenant filed R. C. No. 320/99 on the file of III Additional Rent Controller, hyderabad, for eviction of the tenant from the schedule mentioned premises on the ground of bona fide personal requirement and also on the ground of the revision petitioner-tenant securing alternative accommodation. The learned III Additional rent Controller, Hyderabad, after recording the evidence of P. W. 1, P. W. 2, R. W. 1 and r. W. 2 and also Exs. P-1 to P-8, on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, had arrived at a conclusion that the landlord is entitled to the relief of eviction on both the grounds and aggrieved by the same,, the tenant had preferred r. A. No. 442/2000 on the file of Chief Judge, city Small Causes Court at Hyderabad, and the appellate authority had dismissed the appeal by an order dated 15-6-2001 and aggrieved by the said order, the tenant had preferred the present C. R. P. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as landlord and tenant. ( 2 ) SRI P. Sreedhar Reddy, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioner had contended that though the ground raised is one of bona fide personal requirement, on the pleadings and also the evidence available on record, in fact, the ground is one of additional accommodation and not bona fide personal requirement, as such. The learned Counsel also had contended that the provision of law quoted by the landlord itself is not correct. The learned Counsel also had contended that the essentials to be satisfied in he case of additional accommodation will be different from that of the ground of bona fide personal requirement and bence, in this view of the matter, the approach of both the Courts below in appreciating the evidence on record is not in proper perspective and is totally erroneous. The learned Counsel had pointed out several important aspects which go to show that by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord can be said to be bona fide. The learned Counsel also had pointed out that even on the aspect of alternative accommodation, the suitability or otherwise, of the premises also may have to be considered and this aspect was lost sight of by both the Courts below. The learned Counsel also had pointed out that even on the aspect of alternative accommodation, the suitability or otherwise, of the premises also may have to be considered and this aspect was lost sight of by both the Courts below. The learned Counsel had taken me through the evidence available on record and had pointed out to several portions of the evidence of both P. W. I and R. W. I. The learned Counsel had placed reliance on m/s. Sana optics rep. By Partner Abdul Kareem v. Shyam Sunderbhargava and others, Omer bin Salam Askari v. Dr. Yousuf and also m. K. Salpekar v. Sunil Kumar. ( 3 ) SRI K. Jayakumar, the learned Counsel representing the respondent-landlord had contended that the allegations, made in the petition and also the evidence, which had been recorded, overall may have to be considered while deciding the matter. The learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to the pleadings and also the evidence of P. W. I and R. W. 1 and especially the admission made by R. W. 1 to the effect that he had also resided in the premises for sometime. The learned Counsel also and stated that the premises is only a residential premises and the mere fact that the tenant has been using it for a different purpose will not make the premises to loose its character as residential premises. The learned Counsel also had submitted that the basic amenities or otherwise can be adjusted at any point of time and the mere fact that for the present certain amenities are not available may not be of much consequence. Even otherwise, if the aspect of relative hardship is considered, the landlord, in fact, is a patient, who had sustained losses in the business and is in dire need of requirement of the premises in question and hence, the concurrent finding relating to bona fide personal requirement is well sustainable in law and does not require any interference by the revisional Court. The learned Counsel also had pointed out that the alternative accommodation was secured by the tenant and the tenant will not face any problem at all, since it is only a laundry business. The learned Counsel had taken me through the contents of the impugned order at paragraph Nos. The learned Counsel also had pointed out that the alternative accommodation was secured by the tenant and the tenant will not face any problem at all, since it is only a laundry business. The learned Counsel had taken me through the contents of the impugned order at paragraph Nos. 8 to 12 in detail and also the order of the learned rent Controller who in fact, had dealt both the grounds in detail and had submitted that inasmuch as the concurrent findings relating to facts had been recorded, such findings cannot be disturbed by the revisional Court under Section 22 of A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act, 1960, hereinafter, in short, referred to as act for the purpose of convenience. ( 4 ) HEARD both the Counsel and perused the material available on record. As already stated supra, the landlord had filed the eviction petition on the ground that the tenant is liable to be evicted since he needs the premises for bona fide personal requirement and also on the ground that the tenant had secured alternative accommodation. The case of the landlord is that the tenant had taken the schedule premises on a rent of Rs. 110/- per month and the tenancy is an oral one and the schedule premises is a residential premises and the tenant had taken the premises only for residential purpose, but he has been using it for a laundry business. It is also the case of the landlord that he has no other building in twin cities except this premises and the landlord and his family members have been residing at another premises on rent and thus bona fidely he requires the petition schedule premises for his residential purpose. It was also specifically states that there is no entrance to enter the other room, which is vacant, except through the petition schedule premises and the property is sufficient and convenient for his residential purpose. It is also further stated that since the tenant had secured alternative accommodation, on that ground also he is liable for eviction. It was also specifically states that there is no entrance to enter the other room, which is vacant, except through the petition schedule premises and the property is sufficient and convenient for his residential purpose. It is also further stated that since the tenant had secured alternative accommodation, on that ground also he is liable for eviction. The tenant had taken a stand, no doubt, admitting the ownership of the landlord and stating that except the income from the laundry business, he has no other income to maintain his family and the premises is not a residential premises, but a small room which is not sufficient and convenient for the landlord or his family, and this ground is created only for the purpose of evicting him. The tenant also had pleaded that the landlord was having number of properties in and around the schedule property and the landlord had sold away those properties and he is a very rich man having several properties in the twin cities. No doubt, in the counter filed by the tenant he had explained certain aspects by virtue of which he intends to say that the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide, but, only with a view to throw him out. P. W. 1 is the landlord and P. W. 2 is the landlord of P. W. 1. R. W. I is the revision petitioner-tenant and R. W. 2 is a resident of the locality. Ex. P-1, which was marked, is a sketch plan showing the schedule property and Ex. P-2 is the letter issued by P. W. 2 on 20-10-1999 stating that the landlord in the present eviction petition is his tenant relating to door No. 4-l-2/2,c, King Koti, hyderabad, Ex. P-3 is the office copy of the lawyer s notice dated 23-11-1998, Ex. P-4 is the reply notice, Ex. P-5 is the certified copy of the Assessment Register of the Property tax and Exs. P-6 to P-8 are the positive photographs with negatives. On this material, as already stated supra, both the courts below had recorded concurrent findings and had ordered eviction of tenant. In the light of the evidence of P. W. 2 and also P. W. I, it cannot be disputed that the landlord is residing as tenant at another premises. P-6 to P-8 are the positive photographs with negatives. On this material, as already stated supra, both the courts below had recorded concurrent findings and had ordered eviction of tenant. In the light of the evidence of P. W. 2 and also P. W. I, it cannot be disputed that the landlord is residing as tenant at another premises. However, a serious attempt is made by the revision petitioner-tenant to show that this room is not suitable at all for the family of the landlord. I do not think that the suitability or otherwise of the premises can be judged in the light of the tenant s view, and depending upon the facts and circumstances, it is for the landlord to choose a premises at his own convenience. It had been seriously contended by the learned Counsel for the landlord that in the existing facts and circumstances, as explained by P. W. I, P. W. I intends to reside at the schedule premises. This is a concurrent finding of fact on appreciation of evidence of P. W. 2 and p. W. I by both the Courts below. At this juncture, it may be stated that on the pleadings and also the evidence available on record, it can be taken into consideration the specific ground taken by the landlord is only bona fide personal requirement. The mere fact that the other room is vacant may not convert the ground into one of additional accommodation. At any rate, while considering the pleadings and grounds raised in an eviction petition, in my opinion, a too technical approach cannot be adopted. In M. K. Salpekar v. Sunil kumar (3 supra) at page No. 1844 it was observed that when a Court is called upon to decide whether another building available to the tenant can be treated as alternative accommodation, it has to consider whether the other building is capable of reasonably meeting the requirements of the tenant on his vacating the disputed premises. The learned Counsel for the tenant stressing on this aspect had submitted that though an alternative accommodation for the residential purpose of the tenant is available, that is not at all useful for running his laundry business and this aspect was not considered at all. The learned Counsel for the tenant stressing on this aspect had submitted that though an alternative accommodation for the residential purpose of the tenant is available, that is not at all useful for running his laundry business and this aspect was not considered at all. The learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to M/s. Sona Optics v. Shyam sunderbhargava (1 supra) wherein it was held that possession of the non-residential building from the tenant cannot be obtained by the landlord for his residential purposes unless the case is covered by Section 10 (3) (c) of the Act. The learned Counsel also had placed reliance on Sri Venkata Rama alluminium Co. , Rajahmundry and others v. Boddu Narayanamma for the same proposition. The learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner-tenant also had placed reliance on Omer Bin Salam askari v. Dr. Yousuf (2 supra) relating to the aspect of relative hardship. As already referred to supra, several of the facts are not in dispute. But, though the landlord had taken a specific stand that the premises is only a residential premises and in fact, it was let out to the tenant for residential purpose only, that was, no doubt, disputed by the tenant, but a finding had been recorded accepting the contention of the landlord and hence, it being a finding of fact, I do not think that the approach of the courts below in appreciating the evidence in this regard is in any way perverse or erroneous so as to interfere in revision. Hence, in the light of such a finding recorded on a question of fact, I do not think that the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the revision petitioner are applicable to the facts of the case on hand. As already observed by me, though an argument drawing a distinction, which is definitely very slender in between the ground of bona fide personal requirement and additional accommodation had been seriously canvassed, taking into consideration the material available on record, both oral and documentary evidence, coupled with the specific pleadings of the parties, I am of the opinion that the ground of bona fide personal requirement raised by the landlord in substance is sustainable. Hence, I am not inclined to accept the other contentions raised by the Counsel for the revision petitioner in the light of the grounds expressed by me above. Hence, I am not inclined to accept the other contentions raised by the Counsel for the revision petitioner in the light of the grounds expressed by me above. In fact, I have gone through the orders of both the Courts below where detailed reasons had been recorded while arriving at a conclusion that on both the grounds as to why the tenant is liable to be evicted. Such findings recorded concurrently by both the Courts below in ordinary course, normally do not deserve to be interfered with by revisional Court. Hence, I do not find any merit in the C. R. P. and the C. R. P. is bound to fail for the reasons recorded above. Hence, the C. R. P. is dismissed. But, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the revision petitioner/tenant is granted six months time to vacate the premises. No order as to costs.