HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2656 of 2007 Date: December 6, 2010 Between: P.K. John … Petitioner And Raj Kumar Yadav … Respondent * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2656 of 2007 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 18.4.2007 passed in R.A. No.270 of 2006 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the order of eviction passed against the petitioner by the Additional Rent Controller-cum-XVIII Junior Civil Judge, Secunderabad in R.C. No.4 of 2005 dated 21.8.2006 was confirmed. 2. For better appreciation of the facts, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the trial court. 3. The petitioner is tenant and the respondent is landlord. The landlord filed the petition against the tenant for eviction on the grounds of bona fide requirement and default of rent committed by the tenant from February 2002 to November 2004 at the rate of Rs.800/- per month. The same was disputed by the tenant saying that the rent payable is only Rs.120/- per month and that he was not aware of the landlord purchasing the property under original of Ex.P-6 sale deed and that he also disputed about the sale deed said to have been executed by the previous owner in favour of respondent herein. 4. To substantiate the case of both the parties P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-7 were marked on behalf of the petitioner and R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R-1 to R-22 were marked on behalf of the respondent. 5. The trial court, upon appreciation of the entire evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the respondent- tenant failed to adduce any evidence to show that he paid the rents during the relevant period and therefore he committed default in payment of rents and accordingly ordered eviction. On appeal, the said order was confirmed. Challenging the same the present civil revision petition is filed. 6. Now, the point for determination is whether the orders of both courts are correct or not? 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant contended that petitioner was not aware of purchase of the property by the respondent and that after receipt of notice from the landlord, he came to know about his purchase and when he tendered the rent to landlord, the landlord refused to receive the same and therefore he filed a rent control case R.C.No.285 of 1987 and that was allowed permitting the respondent to deposit the rents @ Rs.120/- per month in the bank account of D. Ramachandra Rao. 8. On the other hand, the respondent opposed the same on the ground that there is no record to show that the tenant has been paying rents to the landlord and deposited the rent into court and the trial court has given a categorical finding that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rents for the relevant period i.e., February 2002 to November 2004 and therefore none of the findings is shown to be perverse or contrary to law and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 9. The petition is filed for eviction of the tenant on the grounds of personal occupation and wilful default committed by the tenant. Both the courts have not accepted the ground of personal occupation of respondent. Therefore, the only ground on which the tenant was ordered to be evicted is wilful default in payment of rent for the period February 2002 to November 2004 payable at the rate of Rs.800/- per month. The tenant disputed the same saying that the rent payable is only Rs.120/- per month. The tenant contended that he was not aware of the landlord purchasing the property and for the first time he came to know about the landlord purchasing the property from the previous owner by virtue of receipt of Ex.A-1 notice. Even assuming for a moment that the petitioner/tenant came to know about the respondent purchasing the property under the original of Ex.P-6 on 06.02.2002, it is the bounden duty of the petitioner to tender or pay rents to the present landlord viz., the respondent. There is no evidence to show that he tendered the rent and that the landlord refused to receive the same. Similarly, there is no evidence to show that the tenant filed a rent control petition whereunder and whereby he was permitted to deposit the rents into court. The documents filed by him i.e., Exs.R-1 to R-21 which are receipts said to have been issued by the vendor of the respondent and similarly Ex.R-22 pocket book containing entries regarding receipt of the rents is also relating to the period of previous landlord. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the petitioner-tenant paid the rents or tendered the rents to the present landlord viz., the respondent for the period from February 2002 to November 2004. There are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial court as well as the appellate court. 10. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. However, as the petitioner has been residing in the premises since 40 years and he has to necessarily secure alternative accommodation, a reasonable time can be granted to vacate the premises. Therefore, the petitioner shall vacate the premises on or before 06th March 2011. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ K.C. BHANU, J Date: December 06, 2010. BSB