HON’BLE SRI JUSITCE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2179 of 1994 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 21.03.1994 in R.A.No.319 of 1989 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said appeal filed by the revision petitioners herein, was dismissed and the order dated 23.03.1989 in RC No.284 of 1984 on the file of the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad allowing the said petition filed by the respondents herein for eviction, was confirmed granting two months time for petitioners herein, to vacate the schedule premises. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the respondents-landlords. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed RC No.284 of 1984 against the petitioners under Section 10(2)(i) and 10(3)[c] of the A.P. Buildings [Lease, Rent, eviction] Control Act seeking eviction of the petitioners from the schedule premises bearing D.No.2-4-519 situate at Patny buildings, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad on the ground of willful default in payment of rents for the period from February 1982 and bona fide requirement for occupation by way of additional accommodation. It is not disputed that the schedule premises bearing D.No.2-4-519 and also 2-4-517, 2-4-518 and 2-4-520 originally belongs to Sri Jaikumar M. Patny and one Dr. KGV Bharath Rao, husband of the first petitioner and father of petitioners 2 to 5 has taken the premises bearing D.No.2-4-519 on lease on a monthly rent of Rs.66/-. According to the respondent-landlord, he purchased the premises bearing numbers 517 to 519 from Jaikumar M.Patny under an agreement of sale and that he filed suit OS No.364 of 1975 for specific performance of the said agreement of sale and the same was decreed on 31.08.1977. Against the said judgment and decree, Jaikumar M.Patny filed an appeal in CCCA No.117 of 1977 on the file of the High Court and the same was dismissed on 03.08.1979 directing Jaikumar M.Patny to execute sale deed within two months. As the vendor failed to execute the sale deed, the respondent/landlord executed the decree and obtained a sale deed through the Court on 05.02.1982 in respect of the premises bearing Nos.517 to 519. It is also not disputed that Dr. Bharath Rao also gave evidence in the suit filed by the respondent/landlord and thus he was aware of the passing of the decree in favour of the respondent-landlord. 4. The petitioners in their counter denied the title of the respondent-landlord and contended that Dr. Bharath Rao, who was originally tenant of the premises bearing No.519 subsequently, purchased the same by entering into an agreement of sale with Jaikumar M.Patny in respect of both premises bearing Nos.519 and 520. They would further contend that Dr. Bharath Rao was not a party to the suit OS No.364 of 1975 filed by the respondent-landlord and therefore, the said judgment and decree passed therein is not binding on them. They would further plead that one Motichand also filed OS No.28 of 1980 before II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad for specific performance of contract in respect of the premises bearing Nos.518 and 519. The petitioners/tenants also denied that the respondent/landlord required the premises for his personal occupation by way of additional accommodation. 5. Based on the pleadings, the learned Additional Rent Controller framed the following points for consideration. 1. Whether the respondents are tenants of the petitioner in the premises in dispute and if so they committed any willful default in payment of rents? 2. Whether the petitioner’s requirement for self-occupation of the premises under occupation of the respondents is bona fide? 3. To what relief? 6. During enquiry, PW.1 was examined and Exs.P.1 to P.3 were marked. The landlord was examined as RW.1 and Exs.R.1 to R.10 were marked on his behalf. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Rent Controller held that the petitioners are the tenants in respect of the premises bearing No.519 and are liable to pay the rents to the landlord and their denial of title of the respondent herein is not bona fide and thus they committed willful default in payment of rents from February 1982 onwards. The learned Rent Controller further held that the tenants have not seriously contested the other grounds urged by landlord that the premises is required for personal occupation by way of additional accommodation and even otherwise, there was no oblique motive on the part of the landlord seeking the premises on the ground of additional accommodation and therefore, requirement of the premises by the landlord was held to be bona fide. Accordingly, the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction of the petitioners herein granting them two months to vacate the schedule premises. Aggrieved by the said order of eviction, the petitioners herein filed appeal in RA No.319 of 1989. The learned Additional Chief Judge-appellate authority by impugned judgment dated 21.03.1994 dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller and granted tenants two months time to vacate the schedule premises. Assailing the said order, the present revision petition is filed by the tenants. 4. It is not disputed that the schedule premises bearing No.2-4- 519 belong to one Jaikumar M.Patny, who was also owner of the other premises bearing Nos.2-4-517, 2-4-519 & 2-4-520. One Dr. Bharath Rao, husband of the first petitioner and father of petitioners 2 to 5 was the tenant in respect of the premises bearing No.519 on a monthly rent of Rs.66/- and after his demise, the petitioners herein being his legal heirs, continued the same. The respondent herein again purchased the premises bearing Nos.517, 518 and 519 from the original owner Jaikumar M.Patny under an agreement of sale and subsequently filed suit OS No.364 of 1975 for specific performance, which was decreed by the III Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad and the appeal filed by Jaikumar M.Patny in CCCA No.117 of 1977 was dismissed by this Court, directing the original owner to execute the sale deed, but as he failed to comply with the same, the respondent herein obtained a registered sale deed through the Court. It is also not disputed that Dr.Bharath Rao was examined as a witness in the said suit and thus, he had knowledge of the claim made by the respondent herein over the schedule premises. The petitioners herein contend that Dr.Bharath Rao purchased the premises bearing Nos.519 and 520 from Jaikumar M.Patny and so the said Bharath Rao and subsequent to his death, the petitioners have been enjoying the said property including the schedule premises in their own right. They further contend that one Motichand also filed OS No.28 of 1980 on the file of III Additional Judge, Hyderabad seeking specific performance of agreement of sale in respect of the premises bearing Nos.517 and 519. The 2nd petitioner herein, who was examined as RW.1 however testified that his father purchased Flat Nos.518 and 520 under an agreement of sale from Jaikumar M.Patny and his father filed suit OS No.1028 of 1980 against Jaikumar M.Patny and the respondent herein for specific performance. Ex.R.1 is the agreement of sale in respect of flat Nos.518 and 520. Exs.R.2 to R.10 are rent receipts said to have been passed by Jaikumar M.Patny in favour of Bharathi Rao in respect of flat Nos.518 and 520. Thus the evidence of RW.1 coupled with Exs.R.1 to R.10 would show that the premises said to have been purchased by Dr.Bharathrao from Jaikumar M.Patny was the flats bearing Nos.518 and 520, which are distinct and different from the petition schedule premises, which is flat bearing No.519. The petitioners herein and prior to them, Dr. Bharathrao were the tenants of the schedule premises i.e., flat bearing No.519 only. The respondent herein is seeking eviction of the petitioners from the said flat No.519 only. The alleged purchase of flats Nos.518 and 520 by Dr. Bharath Rao from Jaikumar M.Patny has therefore, nothing to do with the eviction of the petitioners from flat No.519. Bharath Rao has not purchased the schedule premises i.e., flat No.519 and the claim of ownership made by him was in respect of some other flats i.e., Nos.518 and 520. The denial of the respondent’s title over the premises i.e., flat No.519 by the petitioners is certainly not bona fide, especially when Dr. Bharath Rao gave evidence in the suit OS No.364 of 1975 filed by the respondent and was thus aware of the said claim of ownership made by the respondent. The said suit was decreed and this Court confirmed the same in appeal. 5. It is significant to note that though Dr.Bharath Rao was aware of the claim of ownership put-forward by the respondent on the basis of the agreement of sale, he has not chosen to take any steps for deposit of the rents to the credit of the said suit nor did he file any petition under the Act seeking permission of the learned Rent Controller to deposit the rents in to Court. Admittedly, neither Bharathrao nor the petitioners have paid rents since 1982. If really, they entertained any bona fide doubt over the rival claim of ownership put forwarded by the respondent or Motichand, they ought to have taken steps for deposit of rents before the Court, but no such steps were taken. They have chosen to claim title for themselves in respect of the schedule premises also, though Dr. Bharath Rao purchased the other premises bearing Nos.518 and 520, but not the premises bearing No.519, which is the schedule premises. As the denial of respondent’s title by the petitioners is found to be not at all bona fide and as the petitioners have not admittedly taken any steps to deposit rents into Court and as the rent for the period from February 1982 onwards admittedly remained unpaid, it must be held and in fact was rightly held by the Courts below that the petitioners have committed willful default in payment of rents from February 1982 onwards. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners have not chosen to deposit the rents into Court even subsequent to filing of the petition for eviction or even during the pendency of the rent control appeal. 6. In the circumstances, the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below that the petitioners/tenants have committed willful default in payment of rents, does not call for any interference. The impugned orders would disclose that the petitioners have not seriously contested the other ground urged by the respondent herein namely that the premises is required for occupation by way of additional accommodation. Even otherwise, the respondent herein who is stated to be in occupation of the adjacent flat Nos.517 and 518, is seeking eviction of the tenants from the schedule premises i.e., flat No.519 by way of additional accommodation. As rightly observed by the learned Rent Controller, the requirement appears to be bona fide and without any oblique motive. The Courts below have, therefore, rightly ordered eviction of the petitioners herein on both the grounds. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. The revision petitioners herein are granted two months time from today for vacating the schedule premises. No order as to costs. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 22.01.2010 bss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND (22ND) DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2179 of 1994 Between: Smt. Anasuya Devi & others … Revision Petitioners And: Jamandass (died) & others … Respondents