THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2022 OF 2007 DATED 1ST JUNE, 2010. BETWEEN Kantamani Ratna Kumar … Petitioner And Dr.Muddu Venkata Ramana Rao … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2022 OF 2007 ORDER: This revision petition under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, ‘the Act’) at the instance of the tenant is directed against the order of eviction passed against him concurrently by the learned Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam in R.C.C. No.5 of 2000 as well as the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Appellate Court of Rent Control Cases at Visakhapatnam in R.C.A. No.3 of 2004 so far as the ground of bona fide personal requirement of the landlord is concerned. The petitioner/tenant is residing at the suit house belonging to the respondent/landlord at Visakhapatnam. The respondent is a retired Civil Surgeon from Srikakulam Government Hospital, in the year 1988. Though the respondent is staying at Srikakulam, he desires to shift to Visakhapatnam as there are better medical facilities available in Visakhapatnam in view of advanced age of the respondent/landlord and his wife. He filed the eviction petition in R.C.C.No.5 of 2000 before the Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, on the ground of wilful default committed by the petitioner/tenant in payment of rent from July, 1998 till the date of petition (17.01.2000). He also sought eviction on the ground of bona fide personal requirement as mentioned above. While the ground of wilful default was rejected by the learned Rent Controller by noticing that there is a subsisting practice between the landlord and the tenant to receive rents in lump sum for three or four months. While the plea of wilful default had been rejected, the ground of bona fide personal requirement pleaded by the respondent/landlord was upheld. The learned Rent Controller also has gone into the question of subsequent default committed by the petitioner/tenant during the pendency of the eviction petition and found that the petitioner tenant has committed wilful default subsequent to filing of the eviction petition. Having been aggrieved by the finding of the learned Rent Controller on the subsequent wilful default as well as the bona fide personal requirement, the petitioner/tenant preferred the appeal before the lower appellate Court. Before the lower appellate Court, placing reliance on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in VINUKONDA VENKATA RAMANA v. MOOTHA VENKATESWARA RAO[1] it was contended on behalf of the tenant that the landlord, having not filed any application under Section 11 of the Act, could not raise the plea of subsequent default. So far as the bona fide personal requirement is concerned, additional evidence was also produced before the lower appellate Court by the tenant which includes correspondence between the landlord and the tenant as well as the Newspaper publication dated 05.12.1998 by the landlord whereunder he advertised for sale of the suit house. It was therefore contended before the lower appellate Court, based on the correspondence-Exs.B.6, B.7 and B.8 together with the Newspaper publication referred to above-Ex.B.19 dated 05.12.1998, that the respondent/landlord, in fact, desires to sell the suit house and there is no bona fide personal requirement as alleged. The lower appellate Court found that in the eviction petition though the tenant had obtained a specific order in I.A. No.69 of 2003 for deposit of rents, he failed to comply with the same. The appellate Court, therefore, found that notwithstanding the fact that the landlord had not filed any application under Section 11 of the Act, the subsequent default committed by the tenant can be upheld and confirmed the said finding of the learned Rent Controller. So far as the bona fide personal requirement is concerned, the appellate Court found that two years prior to the filing of the eviction petition, the landlord had intended to sell the suit house and also corresponded with the tenant for the said purpose. However, that by itself is not a ground to presume the lack of bona fide personal requirement and in view of the fact that the respondent/landlord and his wife are fairly advanced in life and they require good medical treatment which is available at Visakhapatnam, their requirement as pleaded was upheld as bona fide. Aggrieved thereby, the tenant has preferred this revision petition. Heard Sri V.Ravinder Rao, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/tenant and Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord. So far as the ground of wilful default prior to the filing of the eviction petition is concerned, the concurrent finding of both the Courts below clearly shows that there was a practice between the parties to receive rents at regular intervals and in lump sum. The finding that there is no wilful default by the tenant prior to the filing of the eviction petition is therefore clearly sustainable and warrants no interference. So far as the subsequent wilful default committed by the tenant during the pendency of the eviction petition is concerned, admittedly the landlord had not filed any application under Section 11 of the Act pending the eviction petition. As per the Full Bench decision of this Court, referred to supra, the said aspect is answered by the Full Bench of this Court in the following words: “The question whether default made subsequent to the filing of the eviction petition can be made a ground for ordering eviction is answered in affirmative subject to the fulfillment of conditions laid down in Section 11 of the Act.” In view of this categorical ratio of the Full Bench, the finding of both the Courts below so far as the subsequent wilful default committed by the tenant is concerned, is unsustainable as admittedly the landlord has not resorted to the procedure laid down under Section 11 of the Act at any time during the pendency of the eviction petition. Therefore, the finding of the lower appellate Court upholding the finding of the learned Rent Controller, so far as the subsequent wilful default is concerned, is liable to be reversed and is set aside accordingly. So far as the bona fide personal requirement is concerned, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant at length and after perusing the material on record, I am of the opinion that the concurrent finding of both the Courts below on the said aspect does not warrant any interference. It is firstly to be noted that the respondent/landlord has only house standing in his name, being the suit house at Visakhapatnam. The fact that he is a retired Civil Surgeon and advanced in age apart from his wife being equally a senior citizen, clearly supports the plea that they do require better medical facilities at this point of their age, which are available at Visakhapatnam. Their desire to reside at the suit house at Visakhapatnam therefore is not a mere desire but a bona fide personal requirement, as rightly found by both the Courts below. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the landlord intended to sell the suit house is concerned, as noted above, the eviction petition was filed on 17.01.2000 whereas the correspondence regarding the sale of the suit house including the advertisement given in the Newspaper by the landlord therefor was two years prior to the filing of the eviction petition. However, it may be true that the landlord at one point of time intended to dispose of the suit house, but there cannot be any estoppel merely because at one point of time the landlord intended to sell the suit house. It is well settled that the landlord is the best Judge of his requirement and if the landlord desires that instead of selling the suit house, he and his wife would stay in the suit house at Visakhapatnam, such requirement cannot be said to be unreasonable and not bona fide, merely because at one point of time he intended to dispose of the suit house. In the absence of any other house property owned by the landlord at Visakhapatnam, such requirement cannot but be answered as bona fide personal requirement. In that view of the matter, the orders of the Courts below ordering eviction of the petitioner/tenant on the said ground of bona fide personal requirement of the landlord warrant no interference. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant sought two months time to vacate the suit premises. The learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submitted that tenant is not at all residing in the suit house and has merely kept it under a lock and key. Photographs of the suit house are placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord and are also shown to the learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant, to demonstrate that that the tenant is not at all residing in the suit house. Even then, in order to give a fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner/tenant, he is granted one (1) month period from today to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the respondent/ landlord. No costs. ____________________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J. 1st June, 2010. VGSR/PGS [1] 2001 (5) ALT 479 (FB)