THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5431 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, (for short, “the Act”) is directed against the order, dated 29.06.2009, in R.C.A.No.2 of 2008, on the file of the Appellate Rent Controller – cum – Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, whereunder and whereby, the order and decree, dated 31.03.2008, in R.C.C.No.4 of 2007, on the file of the Rent Controller – cum – Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, were set aside. 2. The dispute is in between the mother on one hand, and the son and daughter-in-law on the other. It is not in dispute that mother/respondent herein is the owner of shop in dispute. Petitioner No.1, who is the tenant, admittedly paying rents at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month. On two grounds the petition is filed before the trial Court for eviction of the petitioners, one is bona fide requirement and the second is willful default committed by the petitioners in not paying the rents. On both the grounds, the trial Court found that the respondent failed to establish that the petitioners committed willful default in paying rents and that the respondent was aged about 75 years and she could not do business on her own and therefore, dismissed the petition. On appeal, the appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial Court and ordered eviction of the petitioners from the petition schedule premises on the ground that petitioner No.1 admitted that he has not paid the rents from May, 2007 to 18-12-2007 and committed default for the said period. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there is no willful default committed by the petitioners in paying the rents; that when the landlord refused to receive the rents, the petitioners filed a petition before the trial Court for permission to deposit the rents and accordingly, as per order of Court, they deposited the rents and therefore, the finding given by the appellate Court is perverse and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the appellate Court rightly taken note of the fact that the tenant committed default in paying the rents for a period of eight months; that therefore, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court and hence, prays to dismiss the revision petition. 5. Insofar as personal requirement is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the provision under Section 10 (c) of the Act, which reads thus: “Section 10 (c) of the Act 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 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 subsection (1) has let out more than one premises, it shall be open to him to make an application under than sub-section in respect of any one residential and one non-residential premises each chosen by him. Explanation-I: For the purposes 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. 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.” Whereas, the landlord is a widow and the premises is let out by her or her husband is required to be used by her, for her or other family members or for any one truly living with him or her, as the case may be for used. He or she may apply to the Court for recovery of immediate possession of such premises. 6. The premises in question is a non-residential premises. Admittedly, the respondent is aged about 75 years. She is not keeping good health. Most of the time she has to be on bed. Prior to the filing of the petition, she never did the business of Kirana. When she does not have experience in conducting Kirana business, it may not be bona fide requirement of starting business at that stage of old age. Though it is stated by PW.1 that with the help of her son, she wanted to start Kirana business, the other son, who is examined as PW.2, did not say that his mother intended to do business with his help. So, the appellate Court rightly held that the landlord failed to establish that the premises in question is required for starting new Kirana business for her bona fide requirement. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the said finding recorded by the appellate Court. 7. With regard to the default committed in paying the rents by the petitioners, the trial Court has given a finding that in view of the relationship between the landlord and the tenant i.e., mother and son, there is no scope or possibility of issuing receipts in token of receipt of monthly rents and there was no practice of issuing receipts on payment of rents. According to RW.1, he paid Rs.24,000/- as advance, but, the said fact is disputed. Except the oral testimony of PW.1, there is no other evidence to show that her son is not paying rents regularly. But the appellate Court basing on the admission made by RW.1 in cross-examination, taking note of the fact that he was due in paying rents from May 2007, till 18.12.2007, ordered for eviction on this aspect. The evidence of RW.1 is very clear that when he tendered the rents to his mother, she refused to receive the same. Therefore, he was constrained to file a petition to permit him to deposit the rents into Court. In such a case, that cannot be taken as default in paying the rents. The non-payment of rent for the said period under such circumstances cannot be taken as willful default, because he has taken necessary steps in depositing the rents into Court due to the landlord. Therefore, the finding of the appellate Court is not based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record and it is a perverse finding. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are ready to pay the rent regularly. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the landlord is no other than the mother of petitioner No.1 and the petitioners are ready to pay Rs.2,000/- per month from 01.12.2010 onwards, that considering the relationship between the parties, accepting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners herein, it is reasonable to direct the petitioners to pay Rs.2,000/- per month from 01.12.2010 onwards to be payable on or before 5th of every succeeding month. If the petitioners fail to pay the rent within the time as fixed by this Court, then the tenant is liable for eviction without filing any separate application for eviction. On such tendering of rents, it is needless to observe that the respondent/landlord should issue rent receipts and if she refuses to receive the rents, the petitioners can as well deposit the rent by filing necessary application before the Rent Controller. 9. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J December 09, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5431 OF 2009 Between: Busa Sai Srinivas and another .....PETITIONERS AND Busa Bhramaramba ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5431 OF 2009 December 09, 2010