THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P.NO.6071 OF 2009 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 11.11.2009 passed by the court of Rent Appellate Authority (Senior Civil Judge) at Nizamabad in R.C.A.No.6 of 2008 in confirming the order and decree passed by Rent Controller at Nizamabad in R.C.C.No.4 of 2006 in allowing the petition filed by the landlord under Section 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rents and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 and thereby directing the tenant to vacate the suit schedule premises, the present revision is filed. Thus the unsuccessful tenant before the courts below, is the revision petitioner. ` 3. The respondents 1 and 2 herein, who are doctors by profession, are the landlords and they purchased the suit schedule house bearing H.Nos.5-6-593, 5-6-593/1, 5-6-592/2 and new numbers 5-6-753, 5-6-754 and 5-6-759 in ward No.5, Block No.6 situated at Khaleelwadi, Nizamabad in an area of 350 square yards from the 3rd respondent on 14.9.2005 under a registered sale deed bearing document no.10610.2005. The case of the respondents 1 and 2 is that before purchase, they informed the tenants including the revision petitioner that they intend to construct a nursing home in the suit schedule land and requested the other tenants who are four in number, including the revision petitioner, to vacate the respective premises, enabling to construct the nursing home. All the other three tenants vacated except the revision petitioner and he instituted the suit in O.S.No.249/2005 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad and the said suit was dismissed. The revision petitioner was tenant since the year 1985 and at that time the agreed rent was Rs.400/- per month and subsequently it was enhanced to Rs.1,200/- and as he was in occupation of two rooms, the rent payable was Rs.2,400/- per month and that he paid advance of Rs.30,000/- to the original landlord. As the revision petitioner committed default in payment of rent for the months of May, 2004 to April, 2005 in spite of demands, the original landlord – 3rd respondent issued legal notice 10.8.2005 terminating the tenancy by 31.8.2005 and demanding him to handover the vacant possession. But the revision petitioner failed to vacate, and it is alleged that he sublet the premises authorisedly and also had undertaken material alterations. The respondents sought eviction of the revision petitioner on the grounds of willful default, bona fide requirement, unauthorized material alternations and sub leasing the suit shops. 4. On the other hand, the case of the revision-petitioner/tenant while denying the allegations of the landlord, is that the person who was entrusted by the 3rd respondent, refused to receive the rents and therefore, he had sent demand drafts and that when the 3rd respondent was taking coercive steps for eviction, he filed suit and further stated that he was unaware of the transfer of the house and he is also unaware of the intention of the respondents 1 and 2 to construct the nursing home and his further case is that the respondents 1 and 2 did not demolish the mulgies in the font portion of their newly constructed building and that there are two other mulgies by the side of the suit mulgies, which could be demolished. Therefore, the contention of the tenant while denying the willful default in payment of rent and the unauthorized altering of the suit schedule property and subleasing the property, is that the suit schedule property is not required for bona fide occupation of the respondents 1 and 2. With these averments, the R.C. was sought to be dismissed. 5. From the material available on record it could be seen that the revision petitioner is originally the tenant of the 3rd respondent and after the purchase of the suit schedule house by the respondents 1 and 2 there was atonement of tenancy. The case of the respondent no.3 is that there was willful default in payment of rent by the tenant for the period from May, 2004 to April, 2005. To prove this, the respondents relied on Exs.P-1 to P-27. Their further case is that tenant was very irregular in payment of rents. To prove that the tenant was irregular in payment of rent, they relied on Exs.P-11 to P- 14 demand drafts sent by the tenant to the respondent no.3. As per the agreement between the parties, which is admitted by the tenant also, the rent has to be paid by 5th of every succeeding month. But from Exs.P-11 to P-14, both the courts found that the tenant was irregular in payment of rents. Further considering Exs.P-20 to P-25 and other oral evidence on record, both the courts below categorically recorded finding of fact that the tenant committed willful default for the period from April, 2005 to October, 2005 and also no explanation was also forthcoming from the tenant. Both the courts below found that the tenant was very irregular in payment of rents and further committed willful default in payment of rents for the months of April, 2005 to October, 2005. The contention of the tenant is that he paid an advance of Rs.30,000/- to the respondent no.3 and hence the said amount can be adjusted. This contention cannot be countenanced for the reason that he did not take this plea either in the counter and also failed to give any satisfactory explanation with regard to payment of rents for the months of April, 2005 to October, 2005. Therefore, the finding of fact recorded by both the courts below, based on the evidence, cannot be interfered with in this revision. 6. The other ground raised by the landlords is with regard to the bona fide requirement. The case of the respondents 1 and 2 is that they are doctors by profession and that they intend to construct a nursing in the purchased property. They intimated this fact to the other tenants and they vacated the premises, except the revision petitioner – tenant. On the other hand, the case of the tenant/revision petitioner is that there is no bona fide requirement and that the respondents 1 and 2 did not demolish the mulgies in the front portion and that there are two other mulgies by the side of the suit mulgi and hence seeking his eviction from the suit mulgies, cannot be sustained. 7. The Apex Court in the decision reported in PRATIVA DEVI v. T.V.KRISHNAN[1] while considering the bona fide requirement of the landlord therein, held as under: “2. . . . the landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement. He has complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the courts to dictate to the landlord how, and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own. The High Court is rather solicitous about the age of the appellant and thinks that because of her age she needs to be looked after. Now, that is a lookout of the appellant and not of the High court. We fail to appreciate the High Court giving such a gratuitous advice which was uncalled for. There is no law which deprives the landlord of the beneficial enjoyment of his property. We accordingly reverse the finding reached by the High court and restore that of the Rent controller that the appellant had established her bona fide requirement of the demised premises for her personal use and occupation, which finding was based on a proper appreciation of the evidence in the light of the surrounding circumstances.” 8. From the above judgment of the Apex court it is clear that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and that there is no law which deprives the landlord of the beneficial enjoyment of his property. In the present case, the respondents 1 and 2 who purchased the property intend to construct a nursing home in the said property. Apart from the present tenant, there are three more tenants. They were examined as P.Ws.2 to 4. P.W.2 stated that he was running Mamta Lap shop and that the P.W.1, the 1st respondent and his father-in-law approached him and other tenants including the present tenant in the first week of February, 2005 and expressed their intention to purchase the entire building to establish a nursing home and, therefore, himself and other tenants including the revision petitioner, agreed to vacate the premises by May, 2005. P.Ws.3 and 4 who are the other tenants also deposed in line with P.W.2. Therefore, based on the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4, the case of the respondents 1 and 2 that they purchased the property for starting a nursing home as they are doctors by profession, is believed by both the courts below and thus they could establish that there is a bona fide requirement. How the said premises can be used by the respondents 1 and 2 for their beneficial enjoyment, cannot be the concern of the revision petitioner. The objections raised by the revision petitioner that the respondents 1 and 2 have not demolished the other mulgies and therefore, there is no bona fide requirement, cannot be countenanced and both the courts below by cogent and convincing reasons, have categorically found that the suit premises is required by the respondents 1 and 2 for their bona fide requirement and as per the judgment of the Apex Court referred to supra, the landlord is the best judge for the use of his premises and it cannot be concern of others or that the tenant cannot dictate terms how to use the said premises. 9. As noted above, both the courts below concurrently recorded findings of fact based on evidence that the tenant committed default and there is bona fide requirement for the landlords. The said concurrent findings of fact based on evidence, cannot be interfered with in this revision in the absence of any contra evidence. 10. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the revision and the same is dismissed. No costs. AVS -------------------------------- 11—03—2010 [1] (1996)5 SCC 353