( 1 ) THE unsuccessful tenant in R. C. No. 691 /95 on the file of I Addl. Rent Controller, hyderabad and R. A. No. 114/2000 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes court, Hyderabad, had preferred the present c. R. P. under Section 22 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (in short hereinafter referred to as act ). The respondent herein-the landlady filed eviction petition on the ground of bona fide personal requirement and also tenant securing alternative accommodation. The learned Rent controller ordered eviction on the ground of bona fide personal requirement but however negatived the ground of securing alternative accommodation. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant preferred R. A. No. 114/2000 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes court, Hyderabad, wherein the same was confirmed. Aggrieved by the same, the present C. R. P. is preferred. ( 2 ) SRI Prakash Reddy, the learned Senior counsel representing the tenant made the following submissions:- sri Prakash Reddy, the learned Senior counsel representing the tenant had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate authority and would maintain that the bona fide personal requirement had not been established. The learned counsel also would point out that the landlady failed to prove the character of the building being residential. The learned counsel also pointed out to the documentary evidence and would contend that in the light of the documentary evidence, it is clear that the premises was intended to be used for non-residential purpose. The learned counsel also had pointed out to the portions of the evidence of P. W. 1 and also the witnesses examined on behalf of the tenant and had pointed out both to Section 10 and Section 18 of the Act and had explained the scope and ambit of Sections 10 (3) (a) (iii) and 10 (3) (c) of the Act and had pointed out that Sections 10 and 18 of the Act are independent provisions and though there is ample evidence relating to the character of the building being non-residential, the Courts below erred in ordering eviction for bona fide personal requirement of the landlady for residential purpose. The learned counsel also had pointed out the deviation adopted by the Appellate Authority from the reasoning which had been adopted by the learned Rent controller and had pointed out to the relevant portions. ( 3 ) PER contra, Sri Dilip Kumar Shiradkar, the learned counsel representing the landlady had taken this Court through the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Rent controller and also the Appellate Authority in relation to the ground of bona fide personal requirement and would submit that in the light of the clear evidence of P. W. 1 available on record, bona fide personal requirement had been established. The learned Counsel also explained the scope and ambit of section 18 of the Act. The Counsel also placed strong reliance on certain decisions in relation to the ground of bona fide personal requirement and would contend that in the light of the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts, the C. R. P. is liable to be dismissed. ( 4 ) HEARD the Counsel. ( 5 ) THE landlady pleaded that she purchased the property by virtue of a registered sale deed and the revision petitioner-tenant had attorned the tenancy and the particulars relating to the monthly rent and the other relevant facts had been pleaded. It was also further pleaded that the tenant ceased to occupy the premises since he had secured alternative non-residential accommodation. It was also further pleaded that the landlady needs the premises for residential purpose since they have been living in a house belonging to Hindu Undivided family of her husband and her husband is only a coparcener not having exclusive right in the said property. Counter was filed denying the allegations. The learned Rent Controller had framed 2 points for consideration and had recorded a positive finding relating to bona fide personal requirement for her residential accommodation and negatived the relief on the ground of securing alternative accommodation. The same was confirmed even by the Appellate Court as aforesaid. The husband of the landlady was examined as P. W. 1 who had narrated all the details. The Appellate Authority had discussed the evidence available on record at length and confirmed the findings of the learned Rent controller on the aspect of bona fide personal requirement. Reliance was placed on chillmpally Eshwaraiah (died) per LRs. The husband of the landlady was examined as P. W. 1 who had narrated all the details. The Appellate Authority had discussed the evidence available on record at length and confirmed the findings of the learned Rent controller on the aspect of bona fide personal requirement. Reliance was placed on chillmpally Eshwaraiah (died) per LRs. v. Gangaram Sanghi wherein it was held that the joint interest of the landlord in another building in his occupation along with others does not preclude the landlord from evicting the tenant from a building exclusively belonging to him. Reliance was also placed on N. Chenchuramaiah v. Syed Nawabjai @ rahamthulla wherein it was held that when the landlord who is a joint owner cannot have the exclusive enjoyment of the joint house especially when he was living with other joint owner or joint owners, the landlord cannot be asked to suffer by living with joint owners when he is having own house which exclusively belongs to him and which is in occupation of the tenant and if he gets possession of the same, he can occupy it exclusively for himself. Section 18 of the Act reads as hereunder:- conversion into non-residential building: no residential building shall be converted into a non-residential building except with the permission in writing of the Controller. Reliance was placed on V. Lokanadha Reddy v. D. Nagarathanamma @ Munemma wherein it was held that the landlady proved the bona fide personal requirement for non- residential use apart from residential use and she can also use the non-residential building for residential purpose by effecting modifications as there is no embargo like that of one in case of residential building and the finding of the Appellate Court to the extent it went against the landlady is set aside and the orderof eviction passed by the Rent Controller has been confirmed. ( 6 ) BEFORE the learned Rent Controller, the husband of the landlady was examined as p. W. 1 and R. Ws. 1 to 3 were examined. Exs. P-1 to P-15 and Exs. R-1 to R-14 were marked. No doubt serious attempt was made by the tenant to show that this is only non- residential premises and hence the relief of eviction for the purpose of residential purpose cannot be claimed. There is no controversy that the schedule premises was let-out for carrying on business. Exs. P-1 to P-15 and Exs. R-1 to R-14 were marked. No doubt serious attempt was made by the tenant to show that this is only non- residential premises and hence the relief of eviction for the purpose of residential purpose cannot be claimed. There is no controversy that the schedule premises was let-out for carrying on business. The schedule premises was constructed after obtaining approved plan from Municipal Authorities and no doubt, the landlady had not produced the same but the tenant himself produced certified copy of the approved plan Ex. R-14. The proposed construction shown is a big hall with 3 openings in the front side having W. C. and toilet. The purpose of construction was not mentioned in Ex. R-14 and the same was not shown as either residential or non-residential. The evidence of P. W. 1 is that the schedule premises originally was a residential premises but however the tenant had taken a stand that it is a non-residential premises from its inception. Providing of toilet and W. C. had been taken into consideration and reliance was placed on Ex. P-9 the tap connection to schedule house being domestic supply and not for a non-residential premises, certain findings had been recorded. Apart from the said findings, further findings in detail had been recorded in relation to the other oral and documentary evidence available on record. No doubt, Exs. R-1 to R-14 had been explained in detail and it was shown that the electricity supply was taken for commercial purpose and hence submissions at length were made that the premises was being utilized only for non-residential purpose. At para 27 the Appellate Authority observed as hereunder and the relevant portion of the said para reads:-"in the instant case on hand the building was originally a residential building as discussed in the earlier paras and the schedule premises was let out for non- residential purpose but still the schedule premises continues to be a residential premises since no permission was obtained by the landlord for conversion of residential to non-residential under section 18 of the Act. So mere letting out the schedule premises for non- residential purpose that does not cease the original character of the building as residential premises. So mere letting out the schedule premises for non- residential purpose that does not cease the original character of the building as residential premises. Therefore, when the evidence on record is satisfactory and cogent that the requirement of landlady is bona fide certainly the eviction ordered by the Rent Controller can be sustained. Here there is satisfactory evidence that the landlady or any of the family members of the landlady are not in occupation of any other residential building of their own in the twin cities except residing in a joint family house situated at Topekhana. Therefore, the landlady cannot be directed to suffer while residing with the other family members in the joint family house instead of ordering eviction of a tenant from the schedule premises, which exclusively belongs to her. Hence, the evidence on record clearly goes to show that the requirement of landlady is bona fide and genuine. " ( 7 ) THE learned Judge recorded findings in detail and ultimately came to the conclusion that in the light of the clear evidence of P. W. 1 inasmuch as he is not having exclusive right in the other house, the landlady requires the premises bona fide for her residential purpose and ordered eviction. On a careful reading of the findings recorded by both the learned rent Controller and also the Appellate authority, though there is some deviation adopted by the Appellate Authority, concurrent findings had been recorded relating to bona fide personal requirement of the landlady. The character of the building whether residential or not predominantly being a finding of fact, the same need not be disturbed by the Revisional Court in the light of the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below. Even otherwise, on facts, this Court is well satisfied that neither the provisions of Section 10 nor the provisions of section 18 of the Act would come in the way of making an order of eviction in the facts and circumstances of the case which had been well discussed by the Appellate Authority. Except these contentions, no other contentions had been advanced by the respective Counsel on record. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion that the c. R. P. is devoid of merit and accordingly the same shall stand dismissed. Not costs. The tenant is granted four months time to vacate the premises.