B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) TENANTS are the petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition filed under section 22 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease. Rent and Eviction) Control Act (for short the Act ). Respondents 1 and 2 filed the petition under Section 10 (2) (i), 10 (2) (v), 10 (3) (a) (iii) (a) of the Act seeking the eviction of the petitioners from the petition schedule non-residential premises. It is averred that the monthly rent payable in respect of the premises is Rs. 650/- which is payable at the end of every tenancy month. Originally the father of the petitioners herein was the tenant and after his demise the petitioners continued in the said non- residential premises as the tenants. It is case of the respondents-landlords that the petitioners did not pay or tender the rents for the months of April and May, 1990 even up to 31-5-1990. On 16-6-1990 a notice was issued calling upon the petitioners to pay the arrears of rent and to vacate the premises. The petitioners thus committed wilful default in payment of rents is the case set up by the respondents-landlords. It is also their case that they belong to a trading family and the second respondent intended and capable to do fancy goods business and such business was run by the father of the second respondent for half a century. It was pleaded that the second respondent is the sole earning member and he is looking after the present business under the name and style of jayalakshmi General stores in a rented premises belonging to n. Panduranga Vithal. The landlord filed eviction petition in R. C. C. No. 248 of 1983 and the same was allowed on the ground of sub-lease. The learned Rent Controller ordered eviction. Against which the respondents preferred an appeal in R. C. A. No. 368 of 1987. It is under those circumstances, the respondents-landlords set up the plea of bona fide requirement of the petition schedule premises for carrying on their own business. It is also the case of the respondents-landlords that the petitioners have secured an alternative accommodation and therefore, their eviction from the premises would not result in any injustice. ( 2 ) THE petitioners filed their counter denying all the averments and allegations made in the petition. They have pleaded that they have not committed any wilful default in payment of rents. ( 2 ) THE petitioners filed their counter denying all the averments and allegations made in the petition. They have pleaded that they have not committed any wilful default in payment of rents. The respondents herein have filed the eviction petition in order to seek enhancement of rent. They have denied of securing any alternative accommodation for themselves. It is also pleaded by them that the requirement of the premises by the respondents-landlords is not a bona fide one. ( 3 ) A perusal of the pleadings would reveal that eviction petition has been filed mainly on three grounds, namely; (i) wilful default in payment of rents by the tenants: (ii) bona fide requirement of the landlords for their own business purpose; and (iii) that the tenants have secured alternative accommodation for themselves. ( 4 ) IT is an admitted fact that the father of the petitioners herein was the original tenant and the petitioners continued as the tenants after the demise of their father and the relationship of landlord and tenant continued between the parties. The quantum of rent payable by the petitioners is also admitted. ( 5 ) THE learned Rent Controller after an elaborate consideration of the matter rejected the plea of the respondents that the petitioners herein have committed default in payment of rents. The learned Rent controller found that issue in favour of the petitioners and accordingly held that the petitioners have not committed any default whatsoever and much less any wilful default in payment of rents. ( 6 ) THE learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the need of the premises by the second respondent herein for establishing his business is a bona fide one. The learned Rent Controller noticed that the respondents have come from a well known business family. It is further found that the second respondent s father established business and after his death the second respondent is carrying on the business. They were carrying on their business in a rented premises. The landlord filed eviction petition in R. C. C. No. 248 of 1983 against the respondents herein for their eviction from the premises where they were doing their own business. The learned Rent Controller ordered the eviction petition which ultimately was confirmed even by this Court. It is entirely a different matter that a Special Leave Petition is stated to be pending in the Supreme Court. The learned Rent Controller ordered the eviction petition which ultimately was confirmed even by this Court. It is entirely a different matter that a Special Leave Petition is stated to be pending in the Supreme Court. ( 7 ) THE learned Rent Controller having appreciated the evidence available on record found that the respondents herein have no other premises for the purpose of carrying on their business and their requirement is a bona fide one. This issue is accordingly held in favour of the respondents-landlords and against the petitioners. ( 8 ) SO far as the alternative accommodation stated to have been secured by the petitioners is concerned, the learned rent Controller rejected the plea of the respondents-landlords. In the result, the learned Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition filed by the petitioners on the ground that the respondents require the premises for their bona fide business purpose. ( 9 ) THE petitioners herein preferred r. C. C. M. A No. 79 of 1997 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, vijayawada challenging the correctness and legality of the eviction order passed by the learned Rent Controller. The learned appellate Judge upon re-appreciation of evidence and material available on record concurred with the findings of the learned rent Controller and accordingly ordered the eviction of the petitioners herein from the petition schedule premises. Hence this Civil revision Petition. ( 10 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners contends that the judgment of the learned rent Controller and as well as the appellate authority is vitiated and suffers from an incurable legal infirmity. It is mainly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that there is no evidence whatsoever of the landlord in support of the plea of bona fide requirement. It is submitted that the first respondent (since deceased) is the landlady and the second respondent herein is her son and not the owner or the landlord of the premises and he alone is examined as PW1 and the same cannot be taken into consideration. I am unable to accept the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. PW1 is none other than the son of the first respondent who is no more. There is no dispute of landlord and tenant relationship between the parties. I am unable to accept the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. PW1 is none other than the son of the first respondent who is no more. There is no dispute of landlord and tenant relationship between the parties. The learned Rent controller and the appellate authority have not committed any irregularity in taking the evidence of PWl and the documents filed through him into consideration in order to conclude that the requirement of the respondents-landlords is a bona fide one. Such concurrent findings of fact are not interfered with by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Even otherwise the findings are not vitiated for any reason whatsoever. It is however sought to be urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the parties. A perusal of the pleadings does not support the point urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. No such plea has been taken. On the other hand they have contended that they were paying the rents regularly to the respondents-landlords even after the death of their father who was the original tenant of the premises. In the circumstances, I do not find any substance whatsoever in the said contention urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. ( 11 ) IT is urged that the eviction proceedings initiated as against the petitioners by their landlords in respect of the premises where they are doing their present business have not attained the finality and therefore, the plea of bona fide requirement set up by the respondents cannot be accepted. It is submitted that the respondents-landlords have preferred special Leave Petition in the Supreme court challenging the eviction order passed by the court and until the same is disposed of, the requirement of the respondents, cannot be characterised as a bona fide one. I do not find any merit in this contention. Even in the absence of eviction proceedings initiated against the respondents-landlords they could have asked the eviction of the petitioners from the schedule premises for their own occupation. The evidence of PW1 and the material available on record in categorical terms would disclose the nature of requirement of the landlords for their own business purpose. Even in the absence of eviction proceedings initiated against the respondents-landlords they could have asked the eviction of the petitioners from the schedule premises for their own occupation. The evidence of PW1 and the material available on record in categorical terms would disclose the nature of requirement of the landlords for their own business purpose. The findings so recorded by the learned Rent Controller and confirmed in the appeal by the learned appellate Judge in this regard, in my considered opinion is not vitiated. The requirement of the respondents-landlords is a bona fide one. Mere fact that their application against the order of eviction from the premises where they are at present carrying on their business is pending in the Supreme court is of no consequence and has no relevance. The respondents always could have asked for the eviction of the petitioners herein and for recovery of possession for establishment of their own business. The petitioners cannot compel the respondents- landlords to continue their business in the same premises. The choice is that of the landlords. ( 12 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any legal infirmity in the judgment of the learned Rent Controller as confirmed in the appeal by the learned appellate judge. ( 13 ) IT is very well settled that this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction normally does not interfere with such concurrent findings and no exceptional cause as such is made out requiring this court to deviate from the said normal rule. The findings recorded by the learned Rent controller and as confirmed in the appeal by the learned appellate authority cannot be characterised as perverse and they are not vitiated for any reason. ( 14 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit whatsoever in this Civil revision Petition. The same shall stand accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ( 15 ) THE petitioners are granted four months time for their eviction and handing over of the vacant possession of the petition schedule premises to the respondents- landlords. If the petitioners fail to hand over the possession of the petition schedule premises to the respondents -landlords on or before 31-1-2003, it shall be open to the respondents-landlords to proceed with the execution and recover the possession of the petition schedule premises.