THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3957 of 2010 Dated:01.10.2010 Between: Manchala Nageswara Rao. ….Petitioner And Smt.Taduri Satya Syamala. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3957 of 2010 ORDER: This is a revision petition under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (the Act). The tenant is the petitioner. The respondent-landlady instituted R.C.C.No.6 of 2002 before the learned Rent Controller - cum - Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, for eviction from the suit schedule premises being a shop bearing door No.20-8-5/6 (assessment No.23146(B)). The ground on which eviction was sought is the willful default by the tenant in paying the rents. The petitioner opposed the same alleging that he purchased the property from the father of the landlady, and that he has not committed any default. Enquiry was held. Two witnesses each for both sides were examined, and Exs.A1 to A4 for respondent and Exs.B1 to B36 for the tenant were marked. On considering the case, learned Rent Controller held that the petitioner failed to prove the agreement of sale created by him, and that he committed willful default by paying rents irregularly. The petitioner appealed under Section 20 of the Act before the Appellate Authority -cum- Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem. On considering the matter, the learned Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. The Counsel for the petitioner/tenant contends that both the Courts below failed to appreciate the tenant’s case that he entered into agreement of sale with the father of the respondent and that he has not committed any default in payment of rents. These contentions are refuted by the Counsel for the respondent. This Court has thoroughly perused the orders of the learned Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority. Both the authorities on considering the evidence recorded findings of fact. It is too well settled that in a revision under Section 22 of the Act unless findings are perverse, the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact nor reappreciate the evidence (See Mudigonda Chandra Mouli Sastry v Bhimanepalli Bikshalu[1]). In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the Civil Revision Petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. On condition of the petitioner filing undertaking before this Court within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the effect that he shall vacate the petition schedule premises on his own volition within a period of two months and on condition of depositing entire arrears with the Rent Controller, two months time is granted for vacating the petition schedule premises, failing which it shall be open to the respondent to file a contempt case before this Court and also proceed with the execution under Section 15 of the Act. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 01.10.2010 vs [1] AIR 1999 SC 3095