IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6596 of 2005 Between: Patnala Rama Krishna @ Ramakrishna Satyanarayana ... PETITIONER AND Smt.Boddapati Saraswathi and another ... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This is a revision under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (lease, rent and eviction) Control Act, 1960, at the instance of the tenant, questioning the concurrent findings of both the courts below, upholding the ground of willful default pleaded by the respondents. 2. The brief facts of the case are: The eviction petition was filed by the respondent in 1999 alleging willful default in payment of rent by the petitioner – tenant from April, 1997 @ Rs.600/- per month. The case of the petitioner before the Courts below was that he had sent rents by Money Order from December, 1998 and January, 1999 but the same was refused by the landlord. The money order receipts under Exs.B-1 to B-4 were relied upon to show that the petitioner has been sending rents by Money Order/D.Ds. for the months of January and February, 1999 onwards and for the subsequent period as evidenced by Ex.A-2. The petitioner – tenant claimed that he is depositing the rents as per the orders, dated 25-07-2000 of the Rent Controller under Section 8 (5) of the A.P. Buildings (lease, rent and eviction) Control Act, 1960 in R.C.C.No.95 of 1999. Having considered the rival contentions on merits, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the petitioner – tenant has deposited the quantum of rent at Rs.400/- per month and not Rs.600/- per month, as claimed. On evidence, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion in paragraph No.6 of the order that the monthly rent was Rs.600/- per month. To the extent of deposit of rent by the tenant in pursuance of the orders in R.C.C.No.95 of 1999 is concerned, the learned Rent Controller found that while the tenant is depositing regularly @ Rs.400/- per month as per Ex.A-2, the same would not absolve the tenant of the claim of willful default, in view of the fact that monthly rent payable is Rs.600/- per month and not Rs.400/- per month. The learned Rent Controller, therefore, upheld the willful default by observing that there is no explanation whatsoever from the tenant for non-payment of rent during the default period and the deposits said to have been made by him are not covering the entire quantum of rent nor the entire period of default. 3. On appeal, the lower appellate court considered the same contentions and concurred with the findings of the learned Rent Controller that the rent payable is Rs.600/- per month. With regard to the willful default, the deposit made by the tenant being not in conformity with the agreed rent appellate Court held that the plea of the tenant cannot absolve him of the willful default pleaded against him. 4. The lower appellate Court also noticed the decision of this court in Hariprasad Bhadruka v. T. Laxmi and other[1] and found that the deposits made by the tenant to the credit of R.C.C.No.95 of 1999 were not notified to the landlord and as such, the default continues to be willful. 5. In view of the fact that the lower appellate court confirmed the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, the learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the said findings are not justified on the ground that the order in R.C.C.No.95 of 1999 clearly shows that the rent is only Rs.400/- per month. This contention overlooks findings that monthly rent Rs.600/- p.m., and quantum of rent was not adjudicated in R.C.C.No.95 of 1999. 6. Even if the said contention of the learned counsel is accepted, the non-compliance with regard to deposit as held in Hariprasad Bhadruka’s case referred to supra, still stares against petitioner – tenant and it cannot be said that there is any explanation with respect to the period of willful default and, the quantum of default and, therefore, I am not able to find any perversity or irregularity in the concurrent findings of the Courts below. 7. The Revision Petition, therefore, is devoid of merits and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner requests that sufficient time may be granted to the petitioner to enable him to vacate the premises. 9. In view of the fact that the petitioner is carrying on business for several years and there will be sudden dislocation of his business, particularly in view of the investments made by the petitioner in the suit schedule premises. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner is granted time till the end of September, 2010 to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the landlord, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall file undertaking before the Rent Controller within two weeks that he shall promptly and regularly pay arrears of rent, if any, and shall also pay rent from today till the date of vacation of premises and shall not alienate or create any third party interest regarding the schedule premises in favour of any other person. ____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J April 08, 2010. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6596 of 2005 April 08, 2010 [1] 2000 (1) ALT 551