ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the appellant/tenant under Section 22 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (in short ‘the Act’) against the orders passed by learned Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, in R.C.A. No. 11 of 2012 wherein and whereby learned appellate Judge reversed the decision of learned Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, in R.C.C. No. 16 of 2010, which petition filed by the respondent/landlord for eviction of first petitioner/appellant under Section 12 of the Act and ordered for eviction of the first petitioner/tenant and passed decree which reads as under: “(i) that this appeal be and the same is hereby allowed through out with costs. (ii) that the order and decretal order dated 21.06.2012 passed in R.C.C. No. 16 of 2010 on the file of the learned Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore is hereby set-aside. (iii) that the respondent/tenant be and hereby is directed to vacate the schedule mentioned premises and put the same in possession of the appellant/landlord within two (2) months from the date of this order. (iv) that failing which, the appellant/landlord be at liberty to get it done through process of law. (v) that on completion of construction of new building, the appellant/landlord should offer the same to the respondent/tenant for rent as per Ex.P-6 undertaking given by him. (vi) that respondent/tenant do pay the appellant/landlord a sum of Rs. 2,055/- (Since the petitioner/landlord did not file costs memo in R.C.C. No. 16/2010 before the lower court) being the costs of the appeal and do bear his own costs of Rs. 2,052/-.” 2. During the pendency of this civil revision petition, the first petitioner/tenant died and his legal representatives added as petitioners 2 to 7 vide orders in I.A. No. 3 of 2020 dated 26.02.2020. 3. The petitioners and respondent hereinafter referred to as tenants and landlord for the sake of brevity and convenience. 4. Before the Rent Controller, landlord filed petition under Section 12 of the Act stating that tenant is residing in the plaint schedule non-residential shop room and when tenant committed willful default in payment of rents, he filed R.C.C. No. 2 of 1985, which was allowed on 27.11.1990, but against which, tenant preferred R.C.A. No. 24 of 1990 before Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, which was dismissed on 17.01.1995. Against the said order, tenant filed C.R.P. No. 375 of 1996 before this Court, which was allowed and then landlord preferred Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Apex Court, which was dismissed on 22.02.1999, due to that tenant is continuing in possession of plaint schedule shop room. It is the contention of landlord that plaint schedule shop room became old, which is in dilapidated condition which has to be demolished and a new building has to be constructed in its place, for such purpose, he required possession of the building and he also gave undertaking that after reconstruction of the new building, he will offer the premises to the tenant and prays to direct the tenant to vacate from plaint schedule shop room. 5. For which, tenant filed counter before the Rent Controller denying the contention of the landlord stating that petition schedule premises was constructed with iron beams in the roof and it is a terraced building which is perfectly in good condition which does not require demolition but landlord filed petition to harass him. 6. Before the Rent Controller, landlord himself examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 whereas tenant examined himself as RW-1 and also examined one of the residents of town as RW-2. The learned Rent Controller after hearing both sides by following precedent law in B. Suresh Babu vs. T. Ramakrishnaiah, 2005 (5) ALT 672 dismissed the petition filed by landlord on the ground that no document is produced by the landlord that he obtained approval of municipal plan for construction of any new building. 7. Assailing the correctness of orders passed by learned Rent Controller, landlord preferred R.C.A. No. 11 of 2012. The learned appellate Judge after re-appreciating the evidence on both sides, allowed the appeal filed by the landlord by observing that when once the tenant himself admitted that he has been in possession of the petition schedule premises since 1965, the principle of res ipsa-loquitor applies which denotes that the facts and circumstances itself proves the fact asserted. 8. Aggrieved by the eviction orders passed by appellate Court, the tenant preferred present civil revision petition mainly on the ground that landlord not shown any grounds as required under Section 12 of the Act while seeking his eviction. He submits that appellate Judge ignored ratio laid down by this Court in B. Suresh Babu vs. P. Ramakrishnaiah’s case (referred supra). Aggrieved by the eviction orders passed by appellate Court, the tenant preferred present civil revision petition mainly on the ground that landlord not shown any grounds as required under Section 12 of the Act while seeking his eviction. He submits that appellate Judge ignored ratio laid down by this Court in B. Suresh Babu vs. P. Ramakrishnaiah’s case (referred supra). He also stated that there is no presumption that premises is in dilapidated condition only on the ground that he is in possession of premises since the year 1965. He prays to allow the civil revision petition. 9. I have heard both sides. 10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that landlord having failed in his attempt to evict the tenant on a false ground of willful default came up with petition under Section 12 of the Act without any proof with regard to condition of the building, which rightly dismissed by learned Rent Controller. He would further submit that appellate Judge without considering the evidence available on record, reversed the finding of Rent Controller only on presumptions and assumptions and ordered for eviction of the tenant, which is not sustainable in law. The learned counsel for tenant fairly accepted the request of this Court and filed colour photostat copies of positive photos of petition schedule premises along with memo showing present condition of the building. He relied on following precedent law: 1. PORR and Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Associated Publishers (Madras) Limited, (1991) 1 SCC 301 , wherein it is held that for demolition and reconstruction of building for immediate purpose, for which, condition of the building is the prime factor, besides other relevant circumstances to determine the bona fide requirement, for which, deterioration to crumbling state not necessary. It is also explained immediate means at once without delay and immediate also means directly connected not secondary or remote, not separated by any intervening medium. Para-17 of the judgment reads as under: “17. It is also explained immediate means at once without delay and immediate also means directly connected not secondary or remote, not separated by any intervening medium. Para-17 of the judgment reads as under: “17. The requirement for demolition can be regarded as genuine and bona fide only when the condition of the existing building is such that a reasonable and prudent landlord would regard it to be uneconomical to repair it rather than demolish it and reconstruct a new building Apart from the condition of the building, the nature of the locality, the advantages arising from reconstruction the capacity of the landlord to erect a new building the demand for accommodation and other factors suggesting the bona fide character of the landlord's request for recovery of possession under section 14(1)(b) are relevant. Even where the condition of the building demands demolition, it is possible that, in view of the landlord's lack of capacity to rebuild or the futility of reconstruction by reason of the condition of the time and place, the authority may regard, without prejudice to whatever power there is to enforce repairs or demolition in certain circumstances, that the landlord's application lacks bona fide. The authority has to take into account the totality of the circumstances.” Wherein it is also discussed the decision in K.J. Sivalingam vs. S. Guruswamy, (1983) 2 Mad. L.J. 85 and observed that it was not necessary for the landlord to prove that the building was about to crumble down. He observed that the condition of the building was a relevant factor, but he did not, however, seem to accept the view that it was a vital factor. If these decisions are to be understood as having disregarded the overriding importance of the condition of the building, they have not correctly laid down the law.” 2. B. Sureshbabu vs. T. Ramakrishnaiah, 2005 (5) ALT 672 wherein this Court while considering the facts of the case with regard to some problem for ingress and egress that the building has to be removed and reconstruction to be taken up held that landlord not filed any application for approval of municipal plan, due to that it cannot be said that building is required for reconstruction under Section 12 of the Act. 3. 3. Jyothi Automobiles, Hyderabad and Others vs. Khet Bai and Another, 2000 (1) ALD 627, wherein this Court while considering other grounds also held that when there is no evidence to show that condition of the building was such as required immediate demolition and reconstruction, eviction cannot be ordered. He prays to allow the revision petition. 11. The learned counsel for landlord would submit that admittedly building was constructed in the year 1947 and tenant has been in possession of premises/shop room since the year 1965 which clearly shows that premises is sufficiently old, which requires reconstruction as rightly held by appellate Judge. He would further submit that copy of positive photographs filed by tenant itself shows that premises is not now being used by the tenant, wherein he stored waste material and opened another shop opposite to petition schedule premises and not vacating the premises only to harass the landlord. He argued that landlord gave undertaking as required under Section 12 of the Act, which rightly considered by appellate Judge. He prays to dismiss this civil revision petition. 12. Now, the issue that emerges for consideration by this Court is: “Whether the orders under challenge are sustainable, tenable and whether the same warrants any interference of this Court under Section 22 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960?” 13. POINT: Before going to the merits of the case, it would be beneficial to quote Section 12 of Rent Control Act, which reads as under: “Section 12. Recovery of possession by landlord for repairs, alterations or additions or for reconstruction: (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, on an application made by a landlord, the Controller may, if he is satisfied: (a) that the building is reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord for carrying out repairs, alterations or additions which cannot be carried out without the building being vacated. (b) that the building consists of not more than two floors and is reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing it and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished, pass an order directing the tenant to deliver possession of the building to the landlord before a specified date. (2) No order for recovery of possession under this Section shall be passed unless the landlord gives an undertaking that the building on completion of the repairs, alterations or additions or the new building on its completion will be offered to the tenant, who delivered possession in pursuance of an order under subsection (1), for his occupation before the expiry of such period as may be specified by the Controller in this behalf. (3) In case the tenant, to whom the building or the new building, as the case may be, is offered under sub-section (2) by the landlord does not want to occupy it the landlord shall give notice of vacancy in writing to the authorised officer under sub-section (1) of Section 3. (4) Nothing in this Section shall entitle the landlord, who has recovered possession of the building for repairs, alterations or additions or for reconstruction to convert a residential building into a non-residential building or a non-residential building into a residential building unless such conversion is permitted by the Controller at the time of passing an order under sub-section (1).” 14. Section 12 empowers the controller to specify the time or appoint the dates for three purposes: (i) the date of which the tenant has to deliver possession of the building to the landlord. (ii) the date by which the landlord has to complete the work. (iii) the date by which the landlord shall offer the building to the tenant. The controller can also specify the date or time before the expiry of which the tenant must give response to the offer made by the landlord. 15. Though revisional jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act is not as wide as appellate jurisdiction but wider than jurisdiction under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code. In exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act, this Court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless findings of appellate Court suffers from any inherent defect or are based on inadmissible or irrelevant material or are perverse. 16. In exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act, this Court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless findings of appellate Court suffers from any inherent defect or are based on inadmissible or irrelevant material or are perverse. 16. It is not in dispute that previously landlord filed R.C.C. No. 2 of 1985 for eviction of tenant on the ground of willful default, which was allowed on 27.11.1990 and thereafter tenant preferred R.C.A. No. 24 of 1990 which also dismissed on 17.01.1995 against which tenant preferred C.R.P. No. 375 of 1996 on the file of this Court, which was allowed on 30.08.1997 setting aside the eviction orders passed by Rent Controller and also confirmed by appellate authority. It is stated that the landlord filed Special Leave Petition before Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 22.02.1999. Then landlord came up with a petition under Section 12 of the Act on the ground that he bonafidely require premises for demolition and reconstruction as premises became old, which is in dilapidated condition. It is not in dispute that except filing certified copies of decree and orders passed in previous litigation between the parties, landlord not filed any document to support his contention, but filed Ex.P6 undertaking memo which reads as under: “UNDERTAKING OF THE PETITIONER CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE A.P. BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT AND EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1960 I, Paruchuru Venkateswarlu S/o Subrahmanyam, aged 61 years, Hindu, business man and residing in Lakshmipuram, Stonehousepet, Nellore, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows: I am the owner of the premises described in the schedule annexed to the main petition. I filed the petition for possession of the schedule mentioned premises under Section 12 of the Act for demolishing the same and constructing new premises in its place. I will complete the construction within one year from the date of handing over the premises to me. After reconstruction I will offer the premises to the respondent.” For which, tenant also filed objections. 17. It is admitted by the tenant in his evidence as RW-1 that he has been in occupation of petition schedule premises as a tenant since the year 1965 and he has been paying rent of Rs. 600/- per month. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he does not know the age of the building. 17. It is admitted by the tenant in his evidence as RW-1 that he has been in occupation of petition schedule premises as a tenant since the year 1965 and he has been paying rent of Rs. 600/- per month. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he does not know the age of the building. Whereas, landlord as PW-1 has deposed that he has not filed any documentary proof to show that he obtained permission from municipal corporation for construction of new building. The learned appellate Judge after considering admission of the tenant that he has been residing in the premises since 1965 held that things itself will speak that the building requires reconstruction. RW-2 who is said to be aged 36 years and working as computer hardware engineer admitted in his cross-examination that he does not know from which period tenant has been residing in the plaint schedule premises and he deposed that the age of the building may be 15 years. After considering the said evidence of RW-2 and admittedly when tenant has been in possession of the building as a tenant since 1965, learned appellate Judge ordered for eviction by passing a decree, as referred supra. The learned counsel for revision petitioner relied on precedent law wherein in PORR and Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Associated Publishers (Madras) Limited case (referred supra) Hon’ble Apex Court also held that condition of the existing building and totality of the circumstances have to be taken into consideration while considering application for bona-fide requirement of the building for the purpose of reconstruction. In the present case also, the learned counsel for tenant obliged the request of this Court and filed latest copies of positive photos of the petition schedule premises which clearly shows that now the tenant is not conducting any business in the premises and he dumped some waste material in the premises which supports the contention of landlord that premises requires demolition and immediate reconstruction. If really building is in such a condition to conduct business, tenant certainly would have continued his business by keeping stock instead of keeping waste material as could be seen from the copy of positive photographs filed by the learned counsel for tenant. In those circumstances, the learned appellate Judge rightly applied maxim of res ipsa loquitur. If really building is in such a condition to conduct business, tenant certainly would have continued his business by keeping stock instead of keeping waste material as could be seen from the copy of positive photographs filed by the learned counsel for tenant. In those circumstances, the learned appellate Judge rightly applied maxim of res ipsa loquitur. The maxim res ipsa loquitur could create an aid in the evaluation of evidence, an application of the general method of inferring one or more facts in issue from circumstances proved in evidence. In the present case also when admittedly tenant has been in possession of petition schedule premises since the year 1965 and the premises said to be constructed in the year 1947, which is not seriously disputed in the evidence of tenant, the learned appellate Judge rightly applied maxim res ipsa loquitur after considering the other circumstances of the case which brought on record. The copies of positive photographs showing present position of the building also support the observation of learned appellate Judge with regard to condition of the building. In Ex.P6 undertaking though at first instance landlord not specified any time limit, now it contains time limit for completion of construction of the building, which is filed as required under Section 12 of the Act. In view of present facts and circumstances of the case, learned appellate Judge rightly distinguished ratio laid down in the decisions relied on by learned counsel for tenant and ordered for eviction. This Court did not find any illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by appellate authority except putting time limit for reconstruction of petition schedule premises. 18. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the orders passed by the appellate Court in R.C.A. No. 11 of 2012 on the file of the Court of Rent Control Appellate Authority cum Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, arising out of R.C.C. No. 16 of 2010 on the file of the Rent Controller cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore. In the circumstances of the case, both parties shall bear their own costs. 19. The revision petitioners/tenants shall vacate petition schedule premises on or before 30.11.2022 and shall handover possession of the premises to the respondent/landlord, otherwise, the respondent/landlord is entitled to take possession through process of the Court. In the circumstances of the case, both parties shall bear their own costs. 19. The revision petitioners/tenants shall vacate petition schedule premises on or before 30.11.2022 and shall handover possession of the premises to the respondent/landlord, otherwise, the respondent/landlord is entitled to take possession through process of the Court. The respondent/landlord after taking possession of petition schedule premises shall complete the construction of new shop room within a period of one year from the date of taking possession and he shall not convert premises into residential premises in the place of petition schedule shop room. The respondent/landlord shall offer the same to the petitioners/tenants for rent as per Ex.P6 undertaking given by him and he shall follow procedure laid down under Section 12 of the Act, within 30 days after completion of construction of the building. On such offer, the petitioners/tenants shall respond to the offer of the respondent/landlord within 30 days.