IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5786 of 2006 Between: Chunduru Venkataratnam ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Namburi Kesava Rao and others .....RESPONDENT(S) HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5786 of 2006 ORDER: Petitioner, who is the tenant, files this revision under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short – ‘the Act’), inter alia seeking to assail the correctness of the orders of eviction passed against him from the shop in the non-residential portion of the premises which is under his occupation. The facts, in brief, are that initially the respondents- landlords filed R.C.C.No.1/1996 on the file of the Rent Controller- cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, against the petitioner herein on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rents and bona fide requirement of the schedule premises by them for running a shop. After regular inquiry and contest by the petitioner herein, by order dated 17.01.2000, the same was allowed on both the grounds. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner, though the ground of bona fide requirement was set aside, on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents during September 1992 to November 1994, the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, in R.C.C.No.1/1996 dated 17.01.2000 was confirmed. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. Perused the material available on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having regard to the chequered events that lead to filing of these proceedings and especially in view of the disputes in the family of the respondents-landlords, the petitioner could not possibly make the payment rents during September 1992 to November 1994 since it is not known as to who actually is entitled to receive the rents. After considering the submissions and also perusing the material on record, it is quite apparent that earlier there were proceedings between the parties in view of the disputes between the family members of the respondents-landlords. However, the fact remains that the petitioner himself has taken recourse to proceedings under Section 9 of the Act in R.C.C.No.54/1995 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. However there has already been a default in payment of rents by that date i.e. during September 1992 to November 1994. Admittedly, no payments have been made during that period towards rent and no steps have been taken for payment of the same in the Court. There is no other explanation except to say that it is only in view of the disputes in the family of the respondents-landlords, the petitioner could not make payment of the rents during that period. Having regard to the very back ground of the litigation to which the petitioner has already put to, it would have been very easier for the petitioner to opt for deposit of defaulted rents in the Court which he has not done so. Now there is no other explanation in that regard. Therefore, in view of the concurrent finding of fact by the lower appellate Court and the trial Court with regard to default in payment of rents, I find no reason warranting inference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, the petitioner is granted three months time for eviction from today. _____________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J 29th July, 2010 CVRK