ORDER : Nyapathy Vijay, J. 1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 questioning the Order dated 13.06.2013 in R.C.A.No.9 of 2011 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore confirming the Order dated 13.06.2013 in R.C.C.No.35 of 2006 passed by the Rent Controller-cum- Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore. 2. The parties are addressed as landlord and tenant. 3. The R.C.C.No.35 of 2006 was filed by the landlord seeking to evict the tenant. It is the plea of the landlord that the tenant joined in the schedule premises on 05.03.2003 for a period of 2 years on a monthly rent of Rs.1,650/-. On expiry of 2 years, the tenant requested the landlord for continuing him as tenant for one more year till 05.03.2006 on a monthly rent of Rs.1,900/- and the landlord agreed for the same. Subsequently, the lease was further extended for another 6 months. Thereafter, the landlord requested the tenant that the premise is required for the job work of her second son. On such request, the tenant requested the landlord to adjust the rent of Rs.1,900/- per month out of the advance of Rs.12,000/- paid by him. Further, even after the advance amount was adjusted by the landlord, the tenant did not vacate the premises and demanded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to vacate the petition schedule shop. The tenant further filed O.S.No.1014 of 2016 against the landlord for permanent injunction on the alleged threat of dispossession. The landlord’s case was that she has two sons and they have to maintain their family and as such the scheduled premises is required for the said purpose. 4. The tenant filed a counter, obviously denying the allegations of the landlord. It was the plea of the tenant that because of the hard work and industrious effort made by the tenant, the scheduled premises came into focus. The tenant further denied the plea of bona fide requirement as the second son of the landlord was running rival job work in a shop away from the tenant, at least two years prior to filing of the petition. It was further contended that the tenant was regular in paying the rents. Since force was threatened to be used against the tenant for evicting him, the tenant out of lack of choice, had to file suit for permanent injunction. It was further contended that the tenant was regular in paying the rents. Since force was threatened to be used against the tenant for evicting him, the tenant out of lack of choice, had to file suit for permanent injunction. 5. The Rent Controller framed the following issues for consideration:- (i) Whether the respondent committed willful default in payment of rents? (ii) Whether petitioner requires the schedule shop room for additional accommodation? (iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for? 6. The Rent Controller held all the issues against the petitioner and dismissed the R.C.C. Thereupon, the landlord filed R.C.A.No.9 of 2011 and the same was dismissed. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is filed. 7. Heard Sri J.Venu Gopal Rao, learned senior counsel representing Sri V. Venkata Subbaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and M.Janardhana Rao, learned counsel for the Respondent. After hearing the respective counsel, this Court is of the opinion that the following points fall for consideration:- a) Whether the orders of the Courts below without referring to amended Section 10C of the Act can be sustained? b) Whether the findings of the Courts below on the aspect of bona fide requirement of premises by the landlord can be sustained? 8. Point No. (a): The Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 was amended vide Act No.17 of 2005. As per the amendment, Sections 10A, 10B and 10C were introduced among other provisions. The provision that is relevant for the purpose of this case is Section 10-C and the same reads as under:- “10C. 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 sub-section (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: For the purpose of this section, "handicapped person" shall mean a person who is as if being an assessee entitled for the time being to the benefits of deduction under Section 80-U of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Central Act 48 of 1961). 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.]” 9. As per the above provision i.e. Section 10 C(1)(c) , a person aged 65 years or more seeks for recovery of possession for self or for members of his family, a right is provided for immediate possession. The Section 10 C(2) also makes it clear that, it is the prerogative of the landlord to decide as to which of the premises is required and the suitability/choice of the landlord is not open to be questioned by the tenant. 10. In this case, the petitioner was aged about 80 years at the time of filing of R.C.C. Though Section 10-C enables the senior citizen landlord to apply for immediate possession, this Court is of the opinion that no separate application is required to be filed and very filing of a Rent Control Case for eviction on bona fide requirement obligates the Rent Controller to take steps for immediate possession of the schedule premises. The Rent Controller is bound to take steps as per statutory mandate. 11. In this case, the above provision was not noted by the Courts below. The Courts below examined the case law from the conventional aspects and had decided on the aspect of suitability and requirement of additional premises. Therefore the orders of the courts below passed in ignorance of Section 10 C are required to be interfered with. The point is answered in favor of the landlord/petitioner. 12. Point No.(b): It is well known that as regards the suitability of premises, it should be left to the best judgment of the landlord and it is not for the tenant to keep dictating terms to the landlord as to which of the shops is suitable or not suitable. The point is answered in favor of the landlord/petitioner. 12. Point No.(b): It is well known that as regards the suitability of premises, it should be left to the best judgment of the landlord and it is not for the tenant to keep dictating terms to the landlord as to which of the shops is suitable or not suitable. The Section 10C(2) of the Act, also provides for the discretion of the landlord to that effect. 13. As regards the aspect of bona fides of the landlord which are required to be established in eviction under Section 10(3) of the Act, such bona fide requirement is not required to be established in eviction under Section 10C. The language employed under Section 10C is distinctly different from the language used in Section 10(3)(a) or 10(3)(c) of the Act. This Hon’ble Court speaking through Justice Vilas Afzulpurkar in S.Lachman Singh Vs S.Satnam Singh 2012 (2) ALD (NOC 14) considered this provision and interpreted the same at paragraph 23 as under; “Para 23. Insofar as the second question is concerned, Section 10- C of the Act already extracted above shows that what all is necessary for a landlord to seek eviction under the aforesaid provision is to specify that he falls in either of the categories "a" "b" or "c" and that he requires the premises for his or his family's use. It could be immediately noticed that on the aforesaid amended provisions, right to recover 'immediate' possession is conferred on special category of landlords. Further, the wording used 'being the requirement for use' cannot be equated to the language used in the provisions of Section 10(3)(a) or 10(3)(c) of the Act as a bona fide personal requirement. The 'requirement' contemplated under the amended provisions, therefore, needs to be shown by the landlord as reasonable and not extenuated by mala fides. The group of persons entitled to such immediate possession, therefore, are special category persons and, as such, when they satisfy the requirements falling in one of the categories and as to reasonableness of the requirement hardly any defence is available to the tenant except saying that they do not fall in one of the categories under Section 10(C)(c) of the Act. Thus, the special right created in a specified category of landlords for immediate possession keeping in view the objects and reasons behind introduction of such amendment, clearly points out that the defences of the tenant, on the other hand, in such cases, are in a very narrow compass and, in order to give effect to the intention of the Legislature to confer immediate possession, unlike the provisions under Section 10(3)(a) or 10(3)(c) of the Act, relief to such special category landlords is required to be given expeditiously. The interpretation as suggested by the learned Counsel for the tenant would clearly defeat the purpose of the said provision which is intended to confer a right on specified categories of landlords to recover 'immediate' possession of the premises from the tenant. Further, the said right coupled with Explanation-2 providing for one time availability of such right reinforces that the words "required for use" employed in this provision cannot be equated to the words "bona fide required for use", in contradiction to the other provisions of Section 10 of the Act. If really, the requirement was to be on par with bona fide requirement as contemplated under the other general provisions of Section 10 of the Act, it was not necessary to provide a ceiling under Explanation-2 as one-time measure. The Legislature, therefore, was conscious of providing a special right to the specified category of landlords and it is for that purpose the amendment was to advance the housing policies with regard to the specified group of persons.” 14. Therefore, the findings of the court below on this aspect cannot be sustained. The Point No.(b) is held in favor of the landlord/petitioner. 15. In view of the findings rendered above, the orders of the Courts below are set aside and the tenant is liable for eviction. 16. Time for vacating scheduled premises: In the course of arguments, the counsel for the tenant sought for some time for vacating the scheduled premises. On 11.07.2024, the tenant filed an affidavit vide USR No.58942 of 2024 undertaking to vacate the schedule shop within a period of one year. This undertaking was opposed by the counsel for the landlord on the ground that one year is too long a time. 17. Taking into consideration the unconditional undertaking given by the tenant, this Court grants time to the tenant to vacate the scheduled premises by 31.03.2025. This undertaking was opposed by the counsel for the landlord on the ground that one year is too long a time. 17. Taking into consideration the unconditional undertaking given by the tenant, this Court grants time to the tenant to vacate the scheduled premises by 31.03.2025. It is made clear that no further extension can be sought and no extension of time will be entertained by this Court. 18. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.