( 1 ) THE revision petitioners seek to assail the order dated 27. 6. 2005 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judge, City small Causes Court, Hyderabad, in R. A. No. 1 of 2003. ( 2 ) THE unsuccessful landlords who filed R. C. No. 383 of 2001 seeking eviction of the sole respondent-tenant are the revision petitioners. The eviction was sought under section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (for brevity 'the Act') on the premise that the demised premises is required for personal occupation bona fide. That was the sole ground under which the eviction was sought for. At the culmination of enquiry and after having heard on either side, the learned rent Controller by an order dated 26. 9. 2002 in R. C. No. 383 of 2001 dismissed the petition. Inter alia in the order, the learned rent Controller was of the view that it was clear in evidence that that the petitioners did not require the above mulgi on bona fide ground and the application was a ruse. The appellate Court under the impugned judgment was of the view that except the ipse dixit of P. Ws. l and 2, there had been no material on record to show that P. W. 2's requirement was bona fide. Thus, the learned Judge concurred with the finding of the learned Rent controller. As aforesaid, it is now being assailed in the instant civil revision petition. ( 3 ) THE case of the petitioners-landlords was that the respondent-tenant was inducted in the demised premises under a registered lease deed dated 28. 6. 1975 on the condition of payment of rent of Rs. 165/-per month; and that the lease was initially for a period of three years and after expiry of lease period it was renewed for every three years with enhancement of rent. Besides monthly rent, the respondent agreed to pay the property tax payable on the property besides paying the electricity consumption charges. The rent which had been enhanced from time to time eventually was at Rs. 421/- per month plus Rs. 50/-towards property tax, thus in an aggregate at Rs. 471/- per month; and that the tenant has been paying the rent as well as property tax, electricity charges, etc. The rent which had been enhanced from time to time eventually was at Rs. 421/- per month plus Rs. 50/-towards property tax, thus in an aggregate at Rs. 471/- per month; and that the tenant has been paying the rent as well as property tax, electricity charges, etc. However, the premises in question was required for the petitioners' own use for running medical business to be started by the second petitioner who gained experience as a Pharmacist when he was carrying on business of medical shop during the period 1962-71 at Secunderabad. The second petitioner was carrying on the business in a rented premises which is situate at Bank street, Hyderabad. The demised premises was quite convenient for running the business by the second petitioner. No other non-residential premises was available to the petitioners to carry on the medical business except the one in question. Earlier, the petitioner filed R. C. No. 611 of 1993 on the file of the IV Additional Rent Controller, hyderabad, against the respondent-tenant seeking eviction on the grounds of wilful default and personal requirement of the second petitioner for running business in medical shop. However, on account of the stay granted by the High Court for a long time and as the Rent Controller was not taking up the petition for enquiry, the petitioners lost interest in the said matter and they shifted their residence from Tilak road to Domalaguda and were not in touch with their Advocate and left the case for its fate. The petitioners 2 and 3 completed their studies and were planning to start their own business and for the said purpose the demised premises was required. The petitioners 2 and 3 completed their studies and were planning to start their own business and for the said purpose the demised premises was required. ( 4 ) THE respondent resisted that petition by filing a counter mentioning inter alia that the alleged requirement is not bona fide; and that the petitioners possess other mulgies in the Twin Cities; and that the petitioners recently took vacant possession of non-residential mulgi bearing No. 7-1-576 at Station Road, Secunderabad, wherein the business under the name and style of ganga Medical Hall was being run by the tenant and the petitioners got vacant possession of that premises by filing an eviction petition; and that the petitioners also filed R. C. No. 199 of 1982 against the tenant Sri Ramaiah who was carrying on business in the non-residential premises at tilak Road, Hyderabad, and the petitioners got possession of that premises also and thus the petitioners have their own premises and they were getting the tenants evicted with a view to get more rent, according to their will; and that the premises in question was not at all convenient for the alleged medical shop or general stores business as it is a small one and, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. ( 5 ) THERE has been no gainsaying about the jural relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties inter se. The quantum of rent is also not in dispute. Although earlier an application was filed in r. C. No. 611 of 1993 on the ground of default besides the ground of bona fide requirement, in the instant petition, the petitioners did not take the plea of default. Well, the premise on which the instant petition was filed was the bona fide personal requirement for running a medical shop and garments business by the second petitioner. Precisely, on the same ground R. C. No. 611 of 1993 was filed. The contention of the petitioners that in view of the stay granted by the High Court the enquiry was not taken up and they lost interest in the matter and hence they left it out, demonstrably shown to be false from a perusal Ex. R. 8, certified copy of the order passed R. C. No. 611 of 1993. The contention of the petitioners that in view of the stay granted by the High Court the enquiry was not taken up and they lost interest in the matter and hence they left it out, demonstrably shown to be false from a perusal Ex. R. 8, certified copy of the order passed R. C. No. 611 of 1993. The document shows that at the culmination of enquiry and after having heard on either side, R. C. No. 611 of 1993 was dismissed on merits. ( 6 ) IT is now the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-tenant that now in view of the dismissal of R. C. No. 611 of 1993, the petitioners could not maintain the instant petition because the eviction was sought on the same ground. Countering the said argument, sri C. P. Sarathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, represents that there are changed circumstances which are discernible from the averments made in the petition and, therefore, the instant petition is not barred under Section 16 of the Act. According to the learned Senior counsel, the petitioners 2 and 3 who are sons of the first petitioner completed their education and in fact they wanted to do business which was not the case earlier when R. C. No. 611 of 1993 was filed. The demised premises is a small tenement constructed underneath the staircase. According to the learned Counsel for the respondent, it was not suitable for running medical shop as well as garments shop. He sought to rely upon certain excerpts from the evidence of witnesses which may go to show that it was not even possible for two persons to stand in the premises. Such a contention is not tenable for the simple reason that the respondent-tenant has been carrying on the business in kirana shop therein. The size of the tenement is of no consequence and criterion in Twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad because of dearth of accommodation for running business in busy localities. The ground mentioned inter alia in R. C. No. 611 of 1993 is undoubtedly the same ground taken by the petitioners herein in the instant petition. That apart, there has been no evidence on record to show that both the petitioners 2 and 3 are competent having the necessary requirements to run the said business, like licence, permission etc. The ground mentioned inter alia in R. C. No. 611 of 1993 is undoubtedly the same ground taken by the petitioners herein in the instant petition. That apart, there has been no evidence on record to show that both the petitioners 2 and 3 are competent having the necessary requirements to run the said business, like licence, permission etc. , to show their bona fides. The evidence on record, on the other hand, shows that the petitioners who are having several non-residential premises in Twin Cities and in respect of two such premises they filed eviction petitions and got the tenants evicted by the date of filing of the instant petition for eviction. This evidence, which clearly shows that the petitioners are having non-residential premises elsewhere, clearly disentitles the petitioners to seek eviction of the respondent-tenant. Under these circumstances, I see no illegality or material irregularity that has been committed by both the Courts below in having concurrently held that there had been no bona fides in the requirement of the petitioners for the personal occupation of the demised mulgi. I, therefore, see no compelling reasons to interfere with the said concurrent finding of both the Courts below. ( 7 ) SRI C. P. Sarathy, learned Senior counsel, invites my attention to the amended provisions of Section 10-C of the Act. Section 10-C reads as under: "10-C. Right to recover immediate possession of premises to accrue to a widow : (1) Where the landlord is, (a) a widow and the premises let out by her, or by her husband; (b) a handicapped person and the premises let out by him; (c) a person who is of the age of sixty five years or more and the premises let out by him; or her; is required for use by him or her or for his or her family or for any one ordinarily living with him or her as the case may be for use he or she may apply to the Court for recovery of immediate possession of such premises. (2) Where the landlord referred to in subsection (1) has let out more than one premises, it shall be open to him to make an application under that sub-section in respect of any one residential and one non-residential premises each chosen by him. Explanation I :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) Where the landlord referred to in subsection (1) has let out more than one premises, it shall be open to him to make an application under that sub-section in respect of any one residential and one non-residential premises each chosen by him. Explanation I :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Explanation II :the right to recover possession under this section shall be exercisable only once in respect of each for residential and for non-residential use. " ( 8 ) THE said provision was incorporated in the Act by means of an amendment under the Amendment Act 17 of 2005 (for short 'the Amended Act') which came into force with effect from 28. 5. 2005. A perusal of the said provision shows that where the widow of the landlord requires the premises in question for use by her or by her family or by any one ordinarily living with her, she may apply to the Court for recovery of immediate possession of such premises. ( 9 ) THE purpose in bringing out an amendment to the Act under the Amended act seems to be; to regulate residential rent increased in the State; to protect tenants from unwarranted rent increases and arbitrary, discriminatory or retaliatory evictions; to help maintain the diversity of the living community and to ensure compliance with legal obligations; to stimulate private sector investment in rental housing; to overcome the housing crisis, and to preserve the public place, health and safety; and to advance the housing policies with regard to low and fixed income persons, personnel of armed forces, minorities, widows, handicapped and the aged, as can be seen from the statement of objects and reasons. The tenant whose interests are sought to be protected under the Act is obliged under law to pay promptly the rent. So long as the tenant is prompt in paying the rents, he is sought to be protected from unwarranted rent increases and arbitrary, discriminatory or retaliatory evictions. However, from the salient features of the Amended Act it is obvious that the provisions of the said Act shall not apply to any building the rent of which does not exceed Rs. 3,500/- per month in the areas covered by Municipal Corporations in the state and Rs. However, from the salient features of the Amended Act it is obvious that the provisions of the said Act shall not apply to any building the rent of which does not exceed Rs. 3,500/- per month in the areas covered by Municipal Corporations in the state and Rs. 2,000/- per month in other areas; to any building constructed or substantially renovated for a period of 15 years from the date of completion of such construction or substantial renovation; and when there is a right to recover immediate possession to certain specified categories like State or Central Government employees, members of armed forces, widows, aged and the handicapped. ( 10 ) THE Act is a beneficial legislation meant to protect the interests of tenants. Sub-section (1) of Section 10 thereof mandates that a tenant shall not be evicted except in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-sections (2) and (3) thereof or Section 12 or 13. Under the amended provisions of Section 10-C, the Act confers a right to recover immediate possession on certain specified categories of persons as are enumerated therein inter alia. In my considered view, Section 10-C, takes away the protection afforded to the tenant from eviction under Section 10 (2) and (3) of the Act. The Rent Control legislation falls within the domain of a substantive law and the amended provisions are expropriate in nature. Unless it is intended to give retrospective operation either expressly or by necessary implication such legislation is always prospective. The vires of the provisions are not in question. Nothing is discernable from the Amended Act either expressly or impliedly that it intends to operate retrospectively. ( 11 ) IN this regard the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-tenant seeks to rely upon a recent Larger Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Ramvilas bajaj and others v. Ashok Kumar and others, 2007 (4) ALD 137 = 2007 (4)ALT 348 (LB ). The amended provisions of section 32 of the Act came up for consideration in the said judgment. The larger Bench of this Court held that section 32 (c) is prospective in operation and it would not affect the pending proceedings as on the date of coming into force of the amended provisions. The amended provisions of section 32 of the Act came up for consideration in the said judgment. The larger Bench of this Court held that section 32 (c) is prospective in operation and it would not affect the pending proceedings as on the date of coming into force of the amended provisions. For the reasons hereinabove discussed and in view of the larger Bench judgment although it dealt only the amended Section 32-C, such an amendment, therefore, in my considered view, cannot have any retrospective operation. Therefore, Section 10-C has no application in the instant case. ( 12 ) FOR the above reasons, the civil revision petition must fail and is dismissed, but under the circumstances no order as to costs.