THE HONOURABLE Smt. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI Civil Revision Petition No.3965 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 12.8.2010 of the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.A.(SR) No. 7015 of 2010, dated 12.8.2010 whereby and whereunder the learned Chief Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. The respondents filed eviction petition in R.C. No. 145 of 2007, dated 6.7.2010 seeking eviction of the petitioner. The learned Rent Controller having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the material on record, allowed the R.C. filed by the respondents and directed the petitioner to vacate the petition schedule premises within one month. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal, being R.A. (SR) No. 7015 of 2010 before the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The learned Chief Judge dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. Hence, the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he is the tenant of one Syed Ishaq and the respondents are not the owners of the premises in question and the lower appellate Court without taking that aspect into consideration has rejected the appeal. He also contended that the respondents filed the suit only on the ground of wilful default and they did not ask for the relief of recovery of rent. He, therefore, prayed that the revision be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. Perused the impugned order. Admittedly, the respondents filed R.C. under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10- C(1)(a) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act seeking eviction of the petitioner on the ground of wilful default. Even though the petitioner contended that he is the tenant of one Syed Ishaq and the respondents are not the owners of the premises in question, he did not file any material to prove the same. However, he did not dispute the fact that he is in occupation of the premises in question as a tenant. When the petitioner did not dispute about the fact that he is a tenant of the premises in question and when he did not file any material to show that he is the tenant of one Syed Ishaq, the petitioner ought to have paid the rents and since the petitioner did not tender rents from October, 2006, that itself would amount to wilful default. In so far as the contention of the petitioner that the respondents do not require the premises for immediate possession is concerned, since the respondents filed the R.C. under Section 10-C(i)(a) of R.C. Act, the respondents are entitled to seek immediate possession of the premises and the learned Rent controller rightly allowed the R.C. filed by the respondents. Aggrieved, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal and the learnedChief Judge, through order dated 12.8.2010 rejected the appeal on the ground of non-payment of admitted rents. When the petitioner-tenant has not shown any valid reason for non-payment of rents, the learned Chief Judge was justified in rejecting the appeal. In view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 3rd September, 2010 pnb