THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4785 OF 2011 Date: 11-11-2011 Between Davuluri Veerabhadra Rao …..Petitioner And Smt. A. Syamala Devi …..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4785 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner – tenant filed this revision petition under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’) aggrieved by the orders dated 14-09- 2011 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum- Appellate Authority under the Act, Vijayawada in RCCMA No. 78 of 2010, whereby the appeal filed by him was dismissed confirming the eviction order dated 19-10-2010 passed by the learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Vijayawada on the ground that he committed wilful default in payment of rents from December, 2008 to March, 2009. The plea set up by the petitioner – tenant is that on the respondent – landlady filing the eviction petition, he paid the rents for the months of December, 2008; January, February and March, 2009 to the husband of the landlady, but he failed to adduce any evidence except his epsi dixit statement. In the cross examination, he stated that he did not file any proof to show that he had paid rents for the alleged months of default, but contended that he sent pay order for the month of April, 2009 which was received by the landlady. The petitioner, however, failed to prove the same by obtaining necessary ledger extract or transaction extract from the concerned bank. It is also not in dispute that during the pendency of the proceedings, the respondent – landlady filed I.A No.1192 of 2009 under Section 11 (4) of the Act for deposit of arrears of rent which was disposed of on merits directing the petitioner – tenant to pay the arrears of rent of Rs.2,760/- for the defaulted months. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner has deposited the arrears of rent, but has not challenged the order passed in the said I.A by preferring any revision which clearly establishes that he committed wilful default in payment of rents. In view of the same, both the Courts below rightly held that the petitioner committed wilful default in payment of rents. I see no illegality or infirmity discernible in the orders passed by the Courts below warranting interference by this Court. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted time till the end of February, 2012 for vacating the petition schedule premises subject to his payment of arrears of rent and filing an undertaking within two weeks before the learned Rent Controller that he will continue to pay the rents and vacate and handover possession of the schedule premises on 01- 03-2012. A. GOPAL REDDY, J 11-11-2011 ks