THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3754 OF 2011 DT.23.9.2011 Between: Shaik Ameer Jani … Petitioner And Bhojanapalli Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Vara Prasad and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri G Pedda Babu Counsel for respondent No.1 : Sri R Prasad The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3754 OF 2011 ORDER: This revision under Section 22 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 is filed questioning the judgment and decree dated 11.7.2011 in R.C.A. No. 1 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Mangalagiri confirming the order and decree dated 2.12.2009 passed in R.C.C.No. 2 of 2007 on the file of the Rent Controlling Officer- Cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri. The first respondent herein filed R.C.C. No. 2 of 2007 on the file of the Rent Controlling Officer cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalarigi seeking eviction of the respondents from the schedule room and for consequential possession of the same. The petitioner herein is 4th respondent in R.C.C No. 2 of 2007. The learned Rent Controller, by order dated 2.12.2009 allowed the said RCC and directed the respondents to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the schedule shop room within two months from the date of the order. Though, in all, there are seven respondents, since the 4th respondent/petitioner herein alone is in occupation of the subject shop, he alone preferred an appeal in R.C.A. No. 1 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri and by order dated 11.7.2011 the appeal was dismissed confirming the orders passed by the Rent Controlling Officer- Cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri in RCC No. 2 of 2007 dated 2.12.2009. Hence, the present revision petition. The case of the petitioner herein is that his father was original tenant and after his death, the petitioner offered to pay the rent to the land lord and he refused to receive the same, therefore it cannot be said that there is any willful default of payment of rent and the learned Rent Controller erroneously ordered the eviction on the ground that there is willful default on the part of the petitioner and that the said premises is required for personal use and occupation of the land lord. Insofar as willful default is concerned, there is no dispute that the petitioner has not paid the rents from December, 2003 onwards and if the landlord has refused to receive the same, the petitioner ought to have deposited the admitted rent before the learned Rent Controller by obtaining required permission, but no such steps have been taken by the petitioner, therefore, it cannot be said that there is no willful default on the part of the petitioner. As regards the bonafide personal requirement of the landlord is concerned, the landlord has established the same. Thus, both the Courts below concurrently held that there is willful default and the subject premises is required for personal use and occupation by the landlord. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner and on perusal of the orders of the Courts below, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are no legal issues that arise for consideration before this Court warranting interference. The revision petition fails and accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs. However, having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for petitioner to grant sufficient time for eviction, the petitioner is granted time till 31.3.2012 to vacate the premises and handover vacant possession to the first respondent/landlord, subject to conditions that petitioner shall file an undertaking before the learned Rent Controlling Officer- Cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri that he will vacate and handover vacant possession to the first respondent on or before 31.3.2012; shall deposit the arrears of admitted rents from 2003 onwards within eight weeks from today and also pay the monthly rents regularly before 10th of every succeeding month. In default of any of the above conditions, the first respondent is at liberty to execute the decree. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH,J DT.23.9.2011 TVK THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3754 OF 2011 DT.23.9.2011