HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISIION PETITION Nos.3160 and 3173 of 2010 DT.30.07.2010 Jonnalagadda N.S.GopalaKrishnamurthy and another …Petitioners V. T.R.S.Valli. … Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISIION PETITION Nos.3160 and 3173 of 2010 COMMON ORDER:- These two revisions under Section 22 of the A.P.Buildings, (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for brevity, “the Act”) are filed by the petitioners/tenants against the common order, dated 08.03.2010, passed by the Rent Control Appellate Tribunal – cum- Senior Civil Judge, Razole, whereby the R.C.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009, filed against the orders passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Razole, dated 18.06.2009, in R.C.C.Nos. 1 of 2007 and 2 of 2006 respectively, has been confirmed dismissing the appeals. Respondent/landlady filed R.C.A.No.2 of 2006 for eviction of the petitioners on the ground of bona fide requirement and even after filing the same, the petitioners/tenants committed default in payment of the rents. Hence for eviction of the petitioners on the ground of willful default in payment of rents, the respondent filed R.C.A.No.1 of 2007. The learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Razole allowed both the petitions by separate orders directing eviction of the petitioners. On appeal being filed, the learned appellate tribunal confirmed the said findings and dismissed the appeals granting two months time for vacating the suit schedule premises subject to the tenants paying the rents. The landlady and her husband were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 respectively, where they have specifically stated, except the schedule premises, they have no other house in Razole or surrounding villages and since the husband of the landlady, P.W.2 is a retired judge, they want to lead their life at the fag end in the schedule premises. The petitioners resisted the same stating that the respondent’s husband got another house site in Razole village and without any intention to settle down at Razole, they sold the same after filing of the cases. The recitals in Ex.B2 certified copy of registered sale deed executed by P.W.2, shows that no house was existing in the land covered by the said sale deed, it was only a house site and the tiled house existing on the said site was in a dilapidated condition and after removing the same, only vacant site was sold under Ex.B2. In view of the same, the landlady requires the schedule premises for her personal use and occupation, which is a bona fide requirement. The tenants agreed to pay the rent for the schedule premises at Rs.1,000/- per month and after receiving of the notice from the respondent, the tenants sent the amount by way of D.D., dated 18.04.2006 and even prior to that also the tenants committed default in payment of the rents and after filing the R.C.C. also there was willful default in paying rents by the tenants. To establish the same, landlady relied on Ex.A1, the savings bank pass book, Andhra Bank, Razole, which stands in her name and its entries discloses that from 17.04.2003 to 20.02.2006 the amounts were not deposited regularly and there is irregularity in depositing the rents, which has been detailed on point No.2 in para 22 of the appellate court judgment. Further, the very sending of the D.D. for Rs.2,000/- under Ex.B1 itself is an indication that the tenants are in arrears of paying the rents and even after filing the R.C.C., the tenants have not paid the rents to the land lady. The explanation offered by the tenants is that they have filed application under Section 11 of the Act, instead of invoking the jurisdiction under Section 8 of the Act, and even after filing the application the petitioners have not deposited the rents into the Court immediately and thereby committed willful default in payment of the rents. In view of the same, no infirmity is discernable with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below on appreciation of evidence. This Court cannot re-appraise the said evidence as a second court of appeal and interfere with the findings so recorded, unless it is shown that the findings so recorded are not based upon any evidence or perverse and no prudent person can come to such a conclusion that it is not the case projected by the petitioners. I see no merit in the revisions and the Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly dismissed at the admission stage granting four months time to the petitioners for handing over vacant possession of the schedule property to the respondents, subject to the petitioners giving an undertaking to the trial court that they will vacate and handover vacant possession of the schedule property on or before 01.12.2010, depositing the entire arrears of rent to the credit of R.C.A.No.1 of 2007 by the end of August, 2010 and continuing to deposit the rents for the successive months on or before 10th of every succeeding month. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J 30th July 2010 lmv