ORDER : M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. 1. This Revision is filed under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act') challenging the order dated 03-06-2019 in R.C.A. No. 17 of 2018 of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad confirming the order dated 22-12-2017 in R.C. No. 39 of 2014 of the III Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. 2. Petitioner herein is tenant of the respondent which is in premises No. 8-2-601/G/1/A at Road No. 11 of Banjara hills, Hyderabad. The plea of the respondent/landlord in the RC 3. The respondent filed the eviction petition R.C. No. 39 of 2014 seeking eviction of the petitioner alleging that respondent is the absolute owner of the said premises having acquired it from his mother by virtue of inheritance; that he let it out to the petitioner for running a tailoring business; that petitioner is paying rent of Rs. 3,000/- p.m. from January, 2013 onwards; that tenancy is oral and is from month to month; that respondent had let out the entire house to the tenants and is residing at Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad in a rented house for the education of his children, but their education is now completed. He contended that he is doing business at Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad and his wife is also a tailor. He stated that it is bonafidely required the RC schedule property for personal occupation and also for carrying business by his wife. 4. He further alleged that his mother constructed the house with asbestos sheets long back, that it is in a dilapidated condition and so he requested the petitioner and other tenants to vacate and handover the property in June, 2013 so that he can demolish it and construct R.C.C. house for his personal occupation; that petitioner and other tenants requested two months time to vacate the premises; other tenants vacated the premises in August, 2013 but petitioner did not vacate and filed a suit O.S. No. 2332 of 2013 seeking permanent injunction and obtained interim order therein. 5. He alleged that the R.C. schedule property is required for himself, for his family personal use and occupation and also to construct a new structure. He alleged that he issued Ex. P-2 legal notice, which was received by respondent and issued Ex. P-3 reply notice and therefore the petitioner should be evicted from the premises. 5. He alleged that the R.C. schedule property is required for himself, for his family personal use and occupation and also to construct a new structure. He alleged that he issued Ex. P-2 legal notice, which was received by respondent and issued Ex. P-3 reply notice and therefore the petitioner should be evicted from the premises. The plea of the petitioner in the RC 6. Petitioner filed a counter-affidavit stating that respondent had permanently shifted his residence to Dilsukhnagar and let out the back side residential portion and mulgies at the above address in Banjara Hills to different tenants including the petitioner. He alleged that respondent never disclosed that he has intended to construct the property at Banjara Hills at any point time and all of a sudden, the respondent started demolishing all portions including the R.C. schedule property at Banjara Hills and tried to illegally dispossess the petitioner; so he had filed the suit O.S. No. 2332 of 2013 and got injunction; that two other mulgis attached to the R.C. schedule property Mulgi and residential mulgi on the back side has been leased out recently to different tenants on higher rents by taking heavy security deposits after completion of structure; if really respondent or any of his family members needed the RC schedule mulgi, they would not have let out these portions to different tenants and they would have occupied it. 7. He denied that R.C. schedule property is in a dilapidated condition, and alleged that it is fit for habitation. He contended that he is running a Gents Tailoring Shop in the R.C. schedule property and gained goodwill in the market; and if he is evicted from the R.C. schedule premises to other place, he would lose his customers. The order of the Rent Controller 8. Before the Rent Controller, the respondent examined his wife as P.W. 1 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-9. Petitioner examined himself as R.W. 1 and marked Exs. R-1 to R-5. 9. By order dated 22-12-2017, the Rent Controller allowed R.C. No. 39 of 2014 and petitioner was directed to vacate and handover vacant possession of the R.C. schedule property to respondent within two months from the said date. 10. P-1 to P-9. Petitioner examined himself as R.W. 1 and marked Exs. R-1 to R-5. 9. By order dated 22-12-2017, the Rent Controller allowed R.C. No. 39 of 2014 and petitioner was directed to vacate and handover vacant possession of the R.C. schedule property to respondent within two months from the said date. 10. The Rent Controller held that respondent cannot seek eviction of the petitioner from the R.C. schedule premises for use of the same for residential purpose, but he can evict the petitioner therefrom for use by his wife for establishing tailoring business after making new construction. 11. The Rent Controller held that even according to the petitioner, wife of the respondent knows tailoring work and was doing such works; that respondent got constructed new RCC building in the place of the old building leaving R.C. schedule mulgi and let it out to tenants; that wife of the respondent intends to establish her tailoring business in the R.C. schedule mulgi; Ex. R-5 photographs show that the said mulgi was in a dilapidated condition and it should be demolished; and respondent intended to construct a new structure in its place. He also noted that respondent is residing with his family in the residential house behind the R.C. schedule mulgi at Banjara Hills and is no longer residing in Dilsukhnagar; that petitioner had informed the respondent about holes and leakages in the ceiling and asked respondent's wife to get it repaired and during rainy season it is not suitable for doing business. It observed that a landlord has a right to choose premises for his use and the tenant cannot dictated to him; and since the respondent had established bona fide requirement for occupation of the R.C. schedule mulgi for use by his wife for starting tailoring business, the petitioner is liable to be evicted therefrom. 12. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed R.C.A. No. 17 of 2018 before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The said appeal was also dismissed on 03-06-2019. 13. The appellate authority held that according to petitioner, the respondent is the owner of only 50 sq. 12. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed R.C.A. No. 17 of 2018 before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The said appeal was also dismissed on 03-06-2019. 13. The appellate authority held that according to petitioner, the respondent is the owner of only 50 sq. yds of the above property and his mother is the owner of the rest of the house property at Banjara Hills; that petitioner is in occupation of the R.C. schedule mulgi which is on rear side of the residential building of the mother of the respondent; that admissions of the petitioner prove the case of the landlord that the R.C. schedule mulgi is in a dilapidated condition and that he intends to construct a building with R.C.C. roof for use by his wife for tailoring purpose; that suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed on merits and petitioner was troubling the landlord right from the beginning and not cooperating for demolition and reconstruction; and merely because during the pendency of the eviction petition, landlord reconstructed a new building into 2015 and let out to different tenants, it cannot be said that his personal requirement ceased to exist; and the personal requirement plea of the respondent to commence business of his wife in R.C. schedule mulgi after reconstruction is genuine, sincere and bona fide and if not, it would cause hardship to the respondent. 14. It held that it is not for the tenant to show to the landlord how he should adjust himself and the landlord is the best judge to exercise option and choose the best premises of his choice. He relied upon the following decisions: "(1) R.C. Tamrakar v. Nidi Leekha, (2001) 8 SCC 431 , (2) Kanchumanu Venkateswara Rao v. Chukka Raja Reddy : 2015 (3) ALD 367 , (3) Danduboina Madhav Rao v. Kandi Atchiraju : 2013 (3) ALD 23 , and (4) Gurrampadi Annama Raja v. Pathakamoori Malyadri 2011 (4) ALD 289 ." 15. Challenging the said order of the Appellate Authority, this Revision is filed. 16. Challenging the said order of the Appellate Authority, this Revision is filed. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority erred in directing eviction of the petitioner; that respondent has not made out a case for eviction of the petitioner; and when the respondent got other tenants vacated and reconstructed the building, since he had let portions of the reconstructed building to other people, his bona fide requirement ceased. 17. The Appellate Authority had noted in its order that according to the evidence of the petitioner, respondent is not the owner of the entire house property in Banjara Hills and he owns only 50 sq. yds on which the R.C. schedule mulgi stands and the rest of the property belongs to respondent's mother. If so, merely because other portions in the property belonging to respondent's mother were got vacated, and a new building constructed with residential and non-residential portions, petitioner cannot take advantage of the same and contend that in such non-residential portions other tenants were inducted by the respondent's mother. One has to only see the requirement of the respondent and what happened to the nonresidential premises owned by the respondent's mother, is not relevant. 18. Both the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have correctly appreciated the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that wife of respondent knows tailoring work, that they shifted their residence from Dilsukhnagar to Banjara Hills and are residing adjacent to the R.C. schedule mulgi in the residential portion reconstructed by respondent's mother, that the R.C. schedule mulgi is in a dilapidated condition, and the petitioner has not cooperated with the respondent to obtain the R.C. schedule mulgi for use by his wife after reconstruction. 19. In R.C. Tamrakar, (2001) 8 SCC 431 (supra), the Supreme Court held: "10. Law is well settled that it is for the landlord to decide how and in what manner he should live and that he is the best judge of his residential requirement. In deciding the question of the bona fide requirement, it is unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself." 20. Similar view was also taken in Raghavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery & Co AIR 2000 SC 534 . 21. In deciding the question of the bona fide requirement, it is unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself." 20. Similar view was also taken in Raghavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery & Co AIR 2000 SC 534 . 21. Therefore it cannot be said that the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority had committed any error of law in ignoring the availability of non-residential premises for letting out to third parties pending the eviction petition and taking the view that it is for the respondent to choose which premises is more suitable for use by his wife for tailoring business. 22. Therefore I do not find any error in the orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority warranting interference in exercise of the Re-visional jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act. 23. The Revision accordingly fails and it is dismissed. However, petitioner is granted time till 06-11-2019 to vacate the R.C. Schedule mulgi and shall continue to pay rents to the respondent till the said date. The petitioner shall also file an undertaking before the III Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order that he would comply with the above two conditions. No costs. 24. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.