THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3276 of 2010 ORDER: Respondent is the owner of a non-residential premises bearing Municipal No.15-5-422, Akberjah Bazar, Afzalgunj, Hyderabad. The premises was given on rent to the petitioners somewhere in the year 1970. The respondent filed R.C.C.No.426 of 2006 before the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad for eviction of the petitioners by alleging that they committed willful default in payment of rents. She pleaded that the petitioners committed default in payment of rents from 1982 onwards and thereafter, the rents were paid sparingly for certain period. The petitioners filed a counter-affidavit denying the allegations. They pleaded that the rents were being paid to the father of the respondent for about 20 years and that he did not issue any receipts at all. It was also their case that after the death of the father of the respondent, the rents were being paid to her as and when she visited Hyderabad. The trial Court dismissed the R.C.C., through order, dated 10.11.2009. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed R.A.No.130 of 2009 in the Court of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The appeal was allowed on 31.05.2010. Hence, this revision under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’). Smt.Manjari S.Ganu, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the respondent herself admitted that she received rent intermittently and the plea of willful default was not at all established. She contends that the lower appellate Court has reversed the findings of the trial Court without there being any basis. Sri Venkateshwar Varanasi, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that except taking the plea that the rent was being paid to the father of the respondent during his life time, no evidence worth its name was placed. He further submits that the burden squarely rested upon the petitioners to prove the payment of rent and since that burden was not discharged, they became liable to be evicted. The only ground on which the respondent sought for eviction of the petitioners is the one of willful default. Though it was not for a specific period, it was alleged that the default is from the year 1982 onwards. The respondent deposed as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P9. The petitioners gave evidence as RWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.R1 to R42. These are mostly in the form of receipts and acknowledgments for various periods. It is, no doubt, true that the period for which the default in payment of rent was committed was not definite. All the same, the respondent stated that the default is from the year 1982 onwards. Therefore, the burden rested upon the petitioners to prove that the rent was paid. The fact that the R.C.C. came to be filed in the year 2006 does not wipe away the default or the consequences that flow out of it. A tenant is conferred with certain extraordinary benefits under the provisions of the Act and he shall be entitled for the same, if only, he complies with the other conditions, which are referable to the provisions of that very Act. Obviously, because the protection accorded to him is more, the Act also provides for stringent legal consequences in case there existed default. It is in this context that a tenant is required to prove the payment of rent, whenever a plea of default thereof is taken. In all fairness, the respondent admitted in the cross- examination that she too used to receive the rents intermittently whenever she came to Hyderabad. The petitioners, however, were not able to establish that they paid the rents without any break or default. The lower appellate Court has examined the matter, appreciated the evidence and arrived at the conclusion that the petitioners committed default in payment of rents. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that his clients are old and they need reasonable time to secure alternative premises. The request made by the petitioners is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. This Court is of the view that having regard to the length of tenancy and the use to which the premises are put, it would be reasonable to grant time to the petitioners a period of one year. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed, however, by granting time to the petitioners to vacate the premises on or before 01.08.2011, subject to payment of rents regularly and filing of a written undertaking to that effect before the Rent Controller within two months from today. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:06.08.2010 kdl