ORDER:- These two revisions arise under similar factual background. The petitioners are tenants, in respect of different residential premises, owned by the respondent. The eviction of the petitioners was sought by the respondent on the same grounds, namely wilful default and bona fide requirement. The facts are common to both the revisions. Hence, they are disposed of, through a common order. 2. The tenancy in favour of the Petitioners commenced about 18 years back. The respondent filed R.C.Nos.l44 and 146 of 2001 before the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad, against the petitioners under Section. 10 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (for short the Act), pleading that the petitioners committed default in payment of rents, and that the premises are needed for occupation by his sons. The particulars of the period, for which the default is said to have been committed, was furnished and it was urged that the sons of the respondent intend to settle down in the schedule premises. The petitioners filed counter-affidavits, denying the averments in the petitions, filed against them. They contended that rents were being paid regularly, and that there are no bona fides in the claim of the respondent about the requirement of the premises. Through separate orders dated 31-3-2004, the learned Rent Controller held that the respondent failed to prove the plea of wilful default in payment of rents, but directed eviction of the petitioners on finding that the requirement of the premises of the respondent is bona fide. The petitioners filed Rent Appeal Nos. 1 07 and 108 of 2004 before the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The rent appeals were dismissed on 25-9-2006. Hence, these two revisions. 3. Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the plea of bona fide requirement was not at all supported by evidence on record, or the conduct of the respondent, till the date of filing of the R.C. He contends that the respondent got issued notice, dated 23-9-2001, to the petitioner in CRP. No.5834 of 2006, about 15 days before filing the R.C., wherein the alleged requirement of the premises for occupation by the sons of the respondent, was not mentioned at all. He further submits that the respondent owns several premises, and the eviction of the tenants is sought on the same ground, misusing the provisions of the Act. 4. No.5834 of 2006, about 15 days before filing the R.C., wherein the alleged requirement of the premises for occupation by the sons of the respondent, was not mentioned at all. He further submits that the respondent owns several premises, and the eviction of the tenants is sought on the same ground, misusing the provisions of the Act. 4. The respondent filed caveat in both the revisions. Sri B. Nalin Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners and their predecessors in interest continued as tenants for the past 50 years, and the members of the family of the respondent are suffering without any accommodation. He contends that both the Courts below have discussed the factual and legal aspects extensively; applied the settled principles of law, and directed eviction of the petitioners. Learned Counsel points out that the orders under revision do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 5. The respondent pleaded two grounds, while seeking eviction of the petitioners. The trial Court recorded a finding that the plea of wilful default in payment of rents, is not established. As regards the ground of bona fide requirement pleaded by the respondent, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, examined on behalf of the respondent, as well as the documentary evidence, in the form of Exs.P-1 to P-13 in R.C. No.144 of 2001, and Exs.P-1 to P-6, in R.C. No.146 of 2001; was taken into account, and it was held that the requirement pleaded by the respondent is bona fide. 6. On their part, the petitioners alone deposed as witnesses, and no other person was examined. The petitioner in C.R.P. No.5834 of 2006 filed a copy of notice dated 23-9-200 I, got issued by the respondent, and his reply thereto. Barring this, they did not adduce any other evidence. 7. The contention on behalf of the petitioners is that the respondent is owner of certain other premises, and that there was no justification in choosing the eviction of the petitioners alone. The learned Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority referred to the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. 7. The contention on behalf of the petitioners is that the respondent is owner of certain other premises, and that there was no justification in choosing the eviction of the petitioners alone. The learned Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority referred to the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, AIR 1999 SC 2507 and Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co., Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 100 = 1998 (6) ALD (SCSN) 23, and other decided cases, and held that a tenant cannot insist that the landlord must choose any particular premises for his bona fide requirement. It is not in dispute that the respondent had grown up children, who need residence of their own. 8. The plea based upon Ex.P-1, filed in R.e.No.146 of 2001; can not at all be sustained. Through Ex.P-1, the respondent called upon the petitioner to enhance the rent from existing Rs.500/- to Rs.2,000/or to vacate the premises, if he is not agreeable for the enhancement. It may be true, that the bona fide requirement of the premises for occupation by his children was not mentioned in his notice. At the same time, it must be recognized that law does not require that a landlord must issue a notice before filing R.C., and that grounds of eviction must be confined only to those pleaded in a notice, where it is issued. The Act does not contemplate a step similar to the one, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. 9. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any basis to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact, recorded by the Courts below. Hence, the revisions are dismissed. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that his clients need reasonable time for securing alternative accommodation. Learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the family members of his client are suffering, due to paucity of accommodation. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are granted time till 30-6-2007, subject to their filing an undertaking, before the learned Rent Controller, Secunderabad; by the end of December, 2006, to the effect that they shall put the respondent herein in the vacant possession of the said premises on or before 30-6-2007. They shall also pay the rent regularly, in accordance with the existing practice. 12. They shall also pay the rent regularly, in accordance with the existing practice. 12. There shall be no order as to costs.