THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2582 of 2009 ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the judgment dated 20.04.2009 in Rent Control Appeal No.6 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. 2. The petitioners herein are respondents/tenants, and the respondent herein is the petitioner/landlord, before the trial court. For better appreciation of facts, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the trial court. 3. The petitioner/landlord filed Rent Control Case No.51 of 1998 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum- Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur stating as follows: He is the owner of the premises in question viz. bearing D.No.12-25-55 situated in Main Road, Kothapet, Guntur. The respondents/tenants are carrying on screen printing business in the premises in question at the time of his purchase. Vendors of the petitioner informed the tenants about the sale of the premises and attornment of the tenancy and directed them to pay rents to the petitioner from 1.8.1998 @ Rs.750/- per month. The respondents filed Original Suit No.801 of 1998 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur against the petitioner and others seeking injunction. Likewise, they filed Rent Control Case No.34 of 1998 against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner interfered with the amenities. The respondents failed to pay rents for the premises in question from the month of August, 1998 onwards and committed willful default in payment of the rents. The petitioner and his wife are running their hospital in rented premises and they purchased the premises in question for the purpose of shifting the hospital premises and also their residence. After the purchase, the petitioner wanted to develop the premises for the aforesaid purpose. The respondents committed willful default in payment of rents having knowledge about the ownership of the petitioner and that the premises is required for personal occupation of the petitioner. Hence, the respondents are liable to be evicted. 4. The respondents filed counter denying the averments in the petition and stated that they never committed any willful default in payment of rent and they used to pay rents regularly to the vendor of the petitioner. The erstwhile landlord was due an amount of Rs.2,800/- to the respondents being the excess payment made by the respondents, for which they addressed a letter to him, and the respondents were under the bona fide impression that the amount due would be adjusted towards rent from August, 1998 onwards for four months. But, the earlier landlord refunded Rs.2,800/- instead of adjusting the same. Immediately thereafter, the respondents sent the rents for the months of August, September and October, 1998 to the petitioner by way of money order, which was returned by the petitioner wantonly. Though the respondents approached him personally, neither he received the rent nor furnished his bank account number to enable the respondents to deposit the rent. Hence, they were constrained to file Rent Control Case No.48 of 1998 for permission to deposit the rent into the court. As permission was not granted, the money is kept in bank. Hence, they are not liable for eviction and prayed to dismiss the Rent Control Case. 5. During enquiry, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked on behalf of the landlord, and R.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B1 to B7 were got marked, on behalf of the tenants. 6. The trial Court, vide order dated 28.11.2003 dismissed the Rent Control Case holding that there is no evidence to show that the tenants committed willful default in payment of rent and also that the landlord could not successfully establish that the premises in question is required for his additional accommodation. On appeal by the landlord, the appellate court, vide the impugned judgment, reversed the order of the trial court and directed the tenants to vacate the premises in question and deliver vacant possession to the landlord. Challenging the same, the present revision is preferred by the tenants. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/tenants contended that the default in payment of rents for the months of August, 1998 to November, 1998 was not willful one; that, in view of the fact that certain amount was due to the tenants from the original owner of the premises in question, they were under bona fide impression that rents can be adjusted towards the amount due, and that, after receipt of the amount from the original owner, the tenants sent the rents by way of money order, but the same was refused by the landlord; that, the premises in question is not required for bona fide occupation of the landlord; that, the trial court, upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rightly dismissed the Rent Control Case, but without giving reasons, the appellate court set aside the findings of the trial court, and no convincing reasons are given by the appellate court for ordering eviction of the tenants, and therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/ landlord contended that the default committed in payment of rents for the months of August, 1998 to November, 1998 was a willful default as the tenant is liable to pay rent on or before 5th of every succeeding month, and the conduct of the tenant would clearly go to show that the non-payment of rents for the said period is willful, and with mala fide intention, he had not paid the rents; that since the landlord is an Anesthetist and his wife is a Gynaecologist, the premises in question is required for their additional accommodation as they have to attend emergency cases, and the appellate court, upon considering the evidence on record in right perspective, rightly set aside the findings of the trial court and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 9. Now, the point for determination is whether the findings of the appellate court are correct, proper and based upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record ? 10. The factual matrix is not in dispute. One P.Satyanarayana was the original owner of the premises in question. He sold the property in dispute to the landlord (respondent herein) under different sale deeds on 28.7.1998 and 30.07.1998. After the purchase, the landlord issued a notice to the tenants. Thereafter, the original owner P.Satyanarayana addressed a letter dated 3.8.1998, which is marked as Ex.A5, to the second petitioner herein/tenant (R.W.2), who is brother of first petitioner, duly informing that the rate of rent was Rs.750/- and he had paid rents till 28.2.1998 and directed him to pay the rents to Dr.Lingamallu Mohana Bhaskara Rao (landlord) with effect from 1.8.1998 onwards. Receipt of the said letter has not been denied or disputed by the tenants. Therefore, the tenants knew that from 1.8.1998 onwards, they had to pay rents to the landlord @ Rs.750/- per month. 11. It is the case of the landlord that for the months of August, 1998 to November, 1998, the tenants have not paid the rents. On the other hand, it is the case of the tenants that an amount of Rs.2,800/- was to be received by them from the original landlord and therefore the first petitioner/tenant addressed Ex.B2-letter to refund the amount of Rs.2,800/- so that they would pay that amount to the present landlord, for which the original landlord issued Ex.B3-letter. Ex.B2-letter is seriously disputed by the present landlord. As seen from Ex.B2-letter dated 1.9.1998, on the face of it, it appears to be a document brought into existence to suite the case of the tenants. According to this letter, an amount of Rs.2,800/- was kept with him (previous landlord) and the same has to be adjusted towards rent for the months of August, 1998 to November, 1998. But, by that time, already attornment was effected in favour of the present landlord (respondent herein). So, the question of adjustment does not arise. For the first time, the first petitioner/tenant addressed the letter Ex.B2 dated 1.9.1998 stating that the rent payable is only Rs.650/- per month, but he is paying rent @ Rs.750/- from 1.4.1996 to 31.7.1998. That appears to be incorrect because in the counter filed by the tenants, it is categorically stated that the rent payable is Rs.750/- per month. Further more, it is not in dispute that Original Suit No.801 of 1998 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur was filed for grant of permanent injunction, wherein it is stated by the tenants that the rent was enhanced up to Rs.750/- per month. Such is the case, the question of asking the previous landlord to return differential amount of Rs.2,800/- is unsustainable. Therefore, the tenants have not come to the court with clean hands. 12. It is the further case of the tenants that they have sent rents by way of money order. Ex.B5 is the copy of money order form with receipt and Ex.B6 is the returned money order coupon refused by the landlord. A perusal of Exs.B5 and B6 would go to show that they appear to have been brought into existence after filing of the case, for the simple reason that they do not contain any postal seal or stamp to show that the tenants paid the amount covered under Ex.B5 to postal authorities and that the postal authorities tried to tender the amount so received to the addressee and the addressee refused to receive the rent. Therefore, in the absence of any postal seals or stamps on these two documents, no reliance can be placed on Exs.B5 and B5 at all. If these two documents are eschewed from consideration, it is clear that the non- payment of rent for the period from August, 1998 to November, 1998 by the tenants can be said to be willful default, and the tenants have not taken any steps during this period to tender or pay rent to the landlord. This aspect of the case has not been considered by the trial court. Perhaps, Exs.B5 and B6 must not have been perused by the trial court and therefore it came to wrong conclusion as if they were sent to the landlord. Therefore, the appellate court rightly reversed the findings of the trial court and held that there was willful default. 13. Coming to the bona fide requirement of the premises in question for additional accommodation of landlord, admittedly, the landlord is an Anesthetist and his wife is a Gynaecologist, and it is their case that the premises in question is required for their additional accommodation as they have to attend emergency cases. Wife of the landlord, being Gynaecologist, definitely she requires a separate room for examining patients. In view of the fact that the premises in question consists of three rooms, it can be said to be required for additional accommodation of the landlord and his wife. Considering these aspects, the appellate court rightly set aside the findings of the trial court and directed the tenants to vacate the schedule premises and there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the same. 14. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 4.3.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2582 of 2009 4.3.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2582 of 2009 4.3.2011 Between: Maddi Kedarnadh & another …Petitioners And Lingamallu Mohana Bhaskara Rao …Respondent