IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5194 of 2007 BETWEEN: A.Bhumaiah … APPELLANT(S) And Sugra Begum … RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5194 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner in this revision which is filed under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short Act) is the tenant. Having lost before the Rent Controller, Nizamabad and also the appellate authority under the Act (Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad) in the eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlady, he has come up with this revision questioning the order of the appellate authority. 2. The landlady brought the eviction petition on two grounds namely (i) default in payment of rents from 16.05.1994 to 31.08.1997 and (ii) bona fide requirement of the landlady for the purpose of business of her sons. The learned Rent Controller and as well as the appellate authority after considering the evidence let in by the landlady and the tenant upheld the case of the landlady on both the grounds and ordered eviction of the tenant. 3. In this revision the learned counsel appearing for the tenant mainly relied upon a decision of this Court given in VENUKONDA RADHA KRISHNA vs. PULIVARTHI RAMAIAH[1] and contended that though the landlady purchased the premises in question under a sale deed dated 16.05.1994 from the previous landlord he did not know about the same and therefore he could not send the rents to her. He also pleaded that he has been sending the rents regularly to one of the sons of the former landlord and he has been receiving it and therefore he cannot be found guilty of wilful default. In support of this contention the tenant filed certain money order receipts showing that he has been tendering the rents to one of the sons of the previous landlord. The tenant has also let in his oral evidence to show that the plea of bona fide requirement taken by the landlady cannot be accepted and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 who were examined by the landlady cannot be believed. 4. It may be noted here that the landlady Sugra Begum purchased the premises in question which is a non-residential one under the original of Ex.A3 sale deed dated 16.05.1994 from the previous landlord and both the Rent Controller and the appellate authority found that there is no dispute about the sale deed. 5. Regarding the plea of the tenant that he had no knowledge or notice about the purchase of the premises in question by the landlady under the original of Ex.A3 sale deed, the learned Rent Controller examined the said aspect thoroughly and found that after the said purchase the landlady herself has been living in half portion of the total petition schedule property which was meant for both residential and non-residential purposes and that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 would also clearly show that soon after the purchase the landlady and her sons informed the tenant about the said purchase and demanded him to pay the rents. Basing on this evidence the learned Rent Controller and as well as the appellate authority found that the tenant had notice of the original of Ex.A3 sale deed and the purchase of the premises by the landlady through it and despite the same the tenant raised disputes and did not pay rents to her. This is a pure finding of fact and the learned counsel for the tenant could not point out any circumstance from the evidence to accept the tenant’s case that he had no knowledge about purchase of the premises by the present landlady. 6. It is true that in the above decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the tenant, this Court laid down that unless the purchase of the premises in question by the landlord who brought the eviction petition is informed to the tenant or taken to his notice, the tenant cannot be faulted for non-payment of rents and committing wilful default. In that case there was no other evidence to show that purchase of property was taken to the notice of the tenant and in this context it was held in the said decision that a notice from the subsequent purchaser/landlord or landlady was necessary to the tenant informing him about the purchase and unless that notice is there the tenant cannot be held guilty of wilful default in payment of rents. There is no dispute about this proposition but it applies only in those cases where there is no other evidence at all to show that the tenant had notice of the purchase by the landlord or landlady who brought the eviction petition. In the present case basing upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and also the admitted fact that soon after the purchase the landlady was residing in half portion of the petition schedule building, the Rent Controller held that from the residence of the landlady after purchasing the premises and the above evidence the tenant must be held to have notice of the original of Ex.A3 sale deed and the purchase of the property under it by the present landlady. This finding was confirmed by the appellate authority. The learned counsel for the tenant has not been in a position to show any circumstance or reason to hold that the above finding of fact recorded by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the appellate authority is in any way perverse or not borne out by evidence and calls for interference. Hence the above decision cannot help the tenant in this case. In view of this I find that there is no ground to interfere with the findings of both the authorities below regarding the wilful default. 7. Then coming to the other ground of bona fide requirement also, both the Rent Controller and the appellate authority basing on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 upheld the same. It should be noted that P.W1 Syed Wazeed is none other than a son of the landlady. He also stated that he has got two brothers and he added that they require the demised mulgi/premises for setting up a kirana and general stores since they have no other avocation or employment. Both the Rent Controller and the appellate authority discussed the evidence and the pleadings of the landlady regarding the bona fide requirement and concluded that the landlady’s case in that behalf cannot be rejected. This is also a finding of fact and the learned counsel for the tenant could not show any circumstance or reason to conclude that the above findings can be said to be perverse or not borne out by evidence or they are vitiated in any other manner. Accordingly I find that there is no reason to interfere with the conclusion of both the authorities below under the Act in upholding the case of the landlady on the ground of bona fide requirement also. 8. Accordingly, it follows that there are no merits in this revision and the same is therefore dismissed. No costs. The tenant is given six months time to vacate the premises failing which the landlady can obtain it by execution. _______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. 24th February 2011 CVRK [1] 2009 (1) ALD 646