THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4422 of 2010 Date of Order:18.02.2011 Between: Arif Khan ..Petitioner and Chevuri Lakshmi Narayana ..Respondent The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4422 of 2010 ORDER : This revision by the tenant under Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1961 (for short, “R.C.C.Act”) against the order of the Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Appellate Authority, Vijayawada in dismissing R.C.C.M.A.No.43 of 2009, dated 16.07.2010, confirming the eviction order of the Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada passed in R.C.C.No.160 of 2007, dated 06.04.2009. Respondent/landlord filed the above eviction petition under Section 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(c) of the R.C.C.Act, stating that one Nuttaki Lakshmana Rao was the owner of the schedule premises, from whom he purchased the said property under registered sale deed, dated 08.03.2007. At the time of purchase of the property, the vendor introduced all the tenants including the petitioner/tenant to the landlord and informed about the sale transaction and requested all of them to pay the rents to the landlord from 01.03.2007 onwards, for which they have agreed to pay the rents. The landlord purchased the property for additional accommodation of his business and requested the tenant for vacating the premises. But in spite of the same, the tenant evaded to pay the rents as well as to comply the demand. When the landlord went to the tenant and demanded the outstanding rents and to vacate the schedule premises, the tenant abused and threatened the landlord. As such, the landlord gave a report to the police and the same was registered as F.I.R. in crime No.130 of 2007 for the offences under Section 452, 323 and 506 IPC. Further, the tenant filed O.S.No.1783 of 2007 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada against the landlord and the erstwhile landlord, alleging that they have attempted to forcibly dispossess the tenant from the schedule premises. The tenant wilfully committed default in payment of the rents and evaded to vacate the schedule premises. The petitioner/tenant filed a counter denying the averments made by the landlord contending that he constructed two sheds by incurring Rs.3,00,000/- in the schedule premises with the permission of the erstwhile landlord and, therefore, he is entitled to deduct the rents at Rs.2,000/- per month from and out of the above amount spent by him. He also paid an amount of Rs.60,000/- by way of deposit to the erstwhile landlord, which is refundable at the time of vacating the schedule premises. Therefore, he is entitled to deduct the rents at Rs.2,000/- per month. The requirement of the landlord for additional accommodation is not bona fide. The learned Rent Controller after considering the evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no proof that the tenant has paid the rents for the months of March and April, 2007; that the tenant admitted that the landlord came to him and informed about his purchase of the schedule property in between April and May, 2007, but he failed to pay the rents to the landlord; that he also admitted that there is no proof to show that superstructure in the petition schedule property was errected by him; that though it is contended that Rs.3,00,000/- has been spent for construction of the super structure, he failed to prove the same; that he also failed to prove that he paid the rents to the landlord. It was further observed that there is also contradictory statements of the tenant with regard to the sheds in view of the dismissal of the I.A.No.713 of 2007 filed in O.S.No.1783 of 2007 rejecting the contention of the tenant that he constructed two sheds with a finding that there was only one shed in the petition schedule property. Holding so, the Rent Controller ordered eviction of the tenant from the schedule property. On appeal being filed, the lower appellate authority on re- appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence confirmed the said findings. Concurrent findings of facts arrived by the courts below does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, warranting interference by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner/landlord seeks six months time for vacating the schedule property, since it is a non-residential premises. Having regard to the fact that this court while issuing notice before admission stayed the eviction on 28.09.2010 on condition petitioner depositing arrears of rent, if any, and continues to pay the rents and since the petitioner had already availed the benefit of 4½ months by now, I deem it appropriate to grant time for handing over vacant possession of the schedule property till the end of May, 2011. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the petitioner shall handover vacant possession of the schedule property by the end of May, 2011, subject to his depositing the entire arrears of rents, if any, on or before 5th of the succeeding month to the credit of the R.C.C.; continues to deposit the future rents at Rs.2,000/- per month on or before 10th of every succeeding month; and giving an undertaking before the Rent Controller that he will vacate and hand over possession of the schedule property by the end of May, 2011 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In default of payment of rents or giving such undertaking, it is always open for the landlord to execute the order of eviction. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J February 18, 2011 Lmv