THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.R.P.No.2611 of 2009 Date:24.01.2011 Between: Mandava Krishna Prasad …Petitioner And Goparaju Durga Kumari …Respondent THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.R.P.No.2611 of 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act by the tenant challenging the judgment dated 30.04.2009 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur in R.C.A.No.7 of 2007. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/tenant and respondent/landlady. Admittedly, the revision petitioner is a tenant under the respondent/landlady in respect of the schedule mentioned building which was let out for residential purpose. The respondent filed RCC No.52 of 2003 before the Rent Controller-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur seeking eviction of the revision petitioner on two grounds i.e. committing willful default in payment of rent, and for her bona fide requirement for residential purpose after retirement of her husband from service. The learned Rent Controller by his order dated 18.04.2007 in RCC No.52 of 2003, dismissed the rent control case filed by the respondent seeking eviction of the revision petitioner. The Rent Controller held that the respondent failed to establish both the grounds urged seeking eviction of the revision petitioner. In the appeal filed by the landlady, the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur by his judgment dated 30.04.2009 reversed both the findings arrived at by the learned Rent Controller and held that the revision petitioner is liable for eviction on both the grounds urged by the respondent i.e. committing willful default in payment of rent and that the requirement of the respondent for residential purpose is bona fide. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment in RCA No.7 of 2007 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, the tenant filed the present revision. Admittedly the agreed rent was Rs.800/- according to the respondent/landlady, the revision petitioner committed willful default in payment of rent from October, 2000 onwards till the date of filing of the eviction petition by her. According to her, the revision petitioner was due arrears of 34 months from the date of filing of the case, seeking his eviction. Before filing RCC, the respondent issued Ex.A-1 notice setting out both the above mentioned grounds seeking eviction of the revision petitioner and the said notice was returned un-served with the endorsement that the addressee absent continuously for 7 days. The contention of the revision petitioner was that the respondent enhanced the rent from Rs.800/- to Rs.1500/- and when he tendered agreed monthly rent, he was refusing to receive them. Except his self- serving testimony, there was no reliable evidence adduced by the revision petitioner indicating that the respondent refused to receive rents from him. The specific contention of the respondent is that the revision petitioner became due of payment of rents from October, 2000 onwards. The revision petitioner did not specifically state either in his evidence or in his counter as to when he tendered the rents and when they were refused by the respondent. Evidently he did not issue any registered notice to the respondent calling upon her to receive the rents tendered by him, he also did not send the rent through money order, nor did he ask her to furnish the particulars of her bank account in the notice sent to her for the purpose of enabling her to deposit the rents. Indisputably the revision petitioner did not deposit the rents even during the pendency of RCC seeking his eviction filed by the respondent. Considering all the circumstances, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge who is the appellate authority under the Rent Control Act rightly held that the revision petitioner committed willful default in payment of rents and is liable for eviction. The learned Senior Civil Judge is perfectly justified in reversing the finding of the learned Rent Controller on this issue which needs no interference in this revision. The other one on which the eviction of the revision petitioner was ordered is the acceptance of the appellate authority as to the bona fide requirement of the building for her residential purpose. She stated in her petition and in her evidence before the learned Rent Controller that her husband who was mathematics lecturer retired from service which is before filing the revision petition i.e. in 2003 and even though they have been residing in 4/9 Broadpet, Guntur, the said house is not convenient for them which is in a busy commercial locality wherein several hospitals and hostels were also situated, and it was therefore convenient for them to shift their residence to the schedule mentioned building. The claim was opposed by the revision petitioner on the ground that in fact, their residential house in Broadpet, Guntur is more convenient for them but only with a view to evict them, the respondents invented the said ground. As rightly held by the learned Senior Civil Judge in R.C.A.No.7 of 2007 the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlady as to which building is convenient for her residential purpose. The learned appellate authority considered the evidence on record taking into consideration the circumstances stated by the respondent/landlady, rightly held that her requirement of the premises is bona fide for residential purpose and thus, he set aside the finding of the learned Rent Controller who had held that the requirement was not bona fide. The finding arrived at by the learned appellate authority being reasonable grounds and based on evidence, needs no interference in this revision. This court in exercise of powers under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act can reverse the finding of the appellate authority only if the said finding is perverse or contrary to the evidence on record. This Court does not find any perversity in the view taken by the learned appellate authority and further concurs with the finding recorded by the appellate authority since it is based on evidence and reasoning. For the foregoing reasons, this revision petition is devoid of any merit and is dismissed without any order as to costs. The revision petitioner/tenant is granted three months time to vacate the premises from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. _______________ Date:24.01.2011. R. KANTHA RAO, J ccm THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.R.P.No.2611 of 2009 Date:24.01.2011