THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P. NO. 5860 OF 2010 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This revision under Section 22 (b) of Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘The Act’) is directed against the order and decree of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, dated 23-08-2010, rejecting R.C.A. No. 9 of 2009. 3. The respondents filed R.C.C. No. 12 of 2005 of the file on the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, claiming to be the owners of the scheduled building, which originally belonged to the mother of the first petitioner Smt. Zaibunnisa. On her death, the petitioners inherited the building under a will. During the lifetime of the mother Smt. Zaibunissa, the eastern side portion was leased out to the revision petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.50/- which was increased from time to time. The current rent was Rs.900/- . The revision petitioner was a chronic defaulter from April, 2003 and despite several demands, declined to pay the monthly rent. The property is in a totally dilapidated condition and required repairs. The petitioners are residing in rented premises and have to perform the marriages of their daughters, the building is therefore required for their personal occupation. As the revision petitioner declined to vacate the premises for their personal occupation and was also not paying the rents, the R.C.C was filed. 4. The revision petitioner in his counter before the Rent Controller, admitted the tenancy but denied default in the payment of rents. He also contested the claim of the respondents herein that the property was required for their personal use and occupation. The revision petitioner got filed R.C.C 16 of 2004 seeking permission to deposit the rents. 5. By a common order dated 08.09.2009, the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction of the revision petitioner in R.C.C. 12 of 2005 and allowed R.C.C. 16 of 2004 permitting deposit of rent of Rs. 500/- per month. Aggrieved, by the order in R.C.C. 12 of 2005 directing his eviction for default in the payment of rents and bonafide requirement of the respondents herein, the revision petitioner filed R.C.A. 9 of 2009. The learned lower appellate Court on a cogent consideration of the evidence on record concurred with the learned Rent Controller that the revision petitioner had committed default in the deposit of rents persistently and also that the premises was required for the bonafide personal requirement of the respondents herein. 6. This court discerns no infirmity either in the evaluation of the evidence and appreciation thereof or any perversity in the exercise of discretion by the lower appellate Court warranting interference in this revision under Section 22 of the Act. 7. There being no merits, the revision is dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 04.02.2011 SP/ GRR THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P. NO. 5860 OF 2010 04-02-2011 SP/ GRR