HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P. No. 4866 of 2006 And C.R.P.No. 4867 of 2006 COMMON ORDER: Since both the revision petitions arise out of the same dispute and the respondent in both the revisions are one and the same, I deem it appropriate to dispose of them by this common order. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in RCCs. CRP No.4866 of 2006: 3. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 10-08-2006 passed in RCA No.21 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge-Cum-Appellate Court of Rent Control Cases at Visakhapatnam. RCA No. 21 of 2005 arises out of the order dated 19.8.2005 passed in RCC No. 101 of 1999 on the file of the Rent Controller, Visakhapatnam. 4. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner/landlord filed RCC No.101 of 1999 on the file of the Rent Controller, Visakhapatnam u/Sec.10 of A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 for eviction of the respondent /tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner of two asbestos sheet roofed shop rooms bearing D.No.26-14-105 and 26-14-106 situated near Head Post Office, Velampeta, Visakhapatnam and that he had let out the northern side shop to the respondent for doing business on monthly rent of Rs.525/- and it is an oral lease. It is the further case of the petitioner that he is the retired employee and his son completed his graduation but he has not secured any job and that he intended to start business in cycle and its spare parts. Hence, in the last week of March, 1999, the petitioner informed the respondent to vacate the shop since he intended to start business and on that the respondent stopped paying rents from April, 1999 without any reason. Hence the petitioner issued a legal notice dt.20.7.1999 to the respondent which was returned unserved as ‘not claimed refused’. The respondent filed a suit in OS No.2579 of 1999 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, for declaration of his title over the suit schedule property and claiming adverse possession and thus denied the title of the petitioner. 5. The respondent filed a counter denying the fact that the petitioner is the owner of the suit schedule property. It is his specific case that the open land was left unclaimed and that his father constructed shed i.e, disputed shop room and ever since then the respondent’s family has been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same without any objection from any one and that his father has taken electricity connection and paying electricity bills in his name only and as such, the rights of the petitioner’s father even if any, were extinguished in the year 1976 itself and that therefore, the petitioner had lost his right to make any claim over the land. It is also his case that either the petitioner or his father never objected the construction of the shop right from the year 1964 and hence prayed to dismiss the petition with costs. 6. On behalf of the petitioner P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the respondent R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.B1 to B27 were marked. 7. The Rent Controller, Visakhapatnam, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, held that there was a jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent and that the respondent committed willful default in payment of rents to the petitioner and accordingly ordered eviction of the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Prl. Senior Civil Judge-Cum-Appellate Court of Rent Control Cases at Visakhapatnam in RCA No.21 of 2005. The lower appellate court on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record confirmed the order of the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioner/tenant. CRP No. 4867 of 2006: 8. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 10-8-2006 passed in RCA No.20 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Senior civil Judge-Cum-Appellate Court of Rent Control Cases at Visakhapatnam. RCA No. 20 of 2005 arises out of the order dated 19.8.2005 passed in RCC No. 100 of 1999 on the file of the Rent Controller, Visakhapatnam. 9. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner/landlord filed RCC No.100 of 1999 on the file of the Rent Controller, Visakhapatnam u/Sec.10 of A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 for eviction of the respondent on the ground of bonafide requirement. It is his case that he is the absolute owner of two asbestos sheet roofed shop rooms bearing D.Nos. 26-14-105 and 26-14-106 situated near Head Post Office, Velampeta, Visakhapatnam and that he let out the western side shop room to the respondent for running business on an oral monthly rent of Rs.525/- p.m. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the retired employee and his son completed his graduation but he has not secured any job and that he intended to start business in cycle and its spare parts. Hence, in the last week of March, 1999, the petitioner informed the respondent/tenant to vacate the shop since he is intended to start business and that the respondent stopped paying rents from April, 1999 without any reason. Hence the petitioner issued a legal notice dt.20.7.1999 to the respondent which was returned unserved as ‘not claimed refused’. The respondent filed a suit in OS No.2579 of 1999 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam for declaration of his title over the suit schedule property and claiming adverse possession and thus denied the title of the petitioner/landlord. 10. The respondent filed a counter denying that the petitioner is the owner of the suit schedule property. It is his specific case that the respondent’s family members are the absolute owners of the shop bearing D.No.26-14-106 and that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent and that his father has taken electricity connection and paying electricity bills in his name only. It is also his further case that the land was left unclaimed in the year 1964 by the father of the petitioner/plaintiff and thereupon the respondent’s father constructed a shed i.e., the disputed shop room and ever since then the respondent’s family has been in absolute possession and enjoyment of their property without any objection from any one and as such the rights of the petitioner’s father if any, were extinguished in the year 1976 and that the petitioner had lost his right to make any claim over the petition schedule shop and that either the petitioner or his father never objected the construction of the shop right from the year 1964 and hence prayed to dismiss the petition with costs. 11. On behalf of the petitioner P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the respondent/tenant R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.B1 to B27 were marked. 12. The Rent Controller on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, held that there was a jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent and that the respondent committed willful default in payment of rents to the petitioner and accordingly ordered eviction of the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent/tenant preferred an appeal before the Prl. Senior Civil Judge-Cum-Appellate Court of Rent Control Cases at Visakhapatnam in RCA No.20 of 2005. The lower appellate court on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner is the owner of the petition schedule property and that the documents filed by the petitioner proves prima-facie that he is the owner of the property and that the claim of the respondent is not bonafide and that mere paying electricity bills or taking electricity connection does not make the respondent owner of the property and accordingly, dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the rent controller. Aggrieved by the same the present revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioner/tenant. 13. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant in both the revision petitions submitted that the tenants in both the revisions have perfected their title by virtue of adverse possession and that the respondent/landlord nor his father never claimed any right over the property and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent/landlord in both the revision petitions submitted that both the revision petitioners/tenants have filed separate civil suits seeking declaration of title and claiming adverse possession and that both the suits have been dismissed and that both the tenants were unsuccessful and that the lower appellate has confirmed the order of the rent controller and that therefore, the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below require no interference by this Hon’ble Court in these revision petitions. 15. The only point that arise for consideration is that whether there are any merits in both the revisions ? 16. Admittedly, in both the revision petitions the respondent/landlord is one and the same. Though the tenants are different their case is on one footing only. 17. Referring to the facts of RCC No.100 of 1999 the petitioner therein i.e, the landlord marked Exs.A1 to A7. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of the Judgment in OS No.2579 of 1999 on the file of the IV Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Visakhapatnam. Ex.A2 is the Notice dated 01.10.2004 issued by the Municipal Corporation, Visakhaptnam to the landlord for payment of arrears of house tax commencing from 1993 to 2004. Exs.A3 to A7 are the tax receipts paid by the respondent the Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam. 18. In RCC No.101 of 1999 also Exs.A1 to A7, which are almost similar to the other case. Both the courts below have currently gave a finding that the landlord is the owner of the property and that the tenants have committed default in payment of rents. Moreover, in both the cases, the tenants have filed civil suits seeking declaration of title and claiming adverse possession and admittedly, the said suits filed by the tenants have been dismissed. 19. The case of the petitioner/landlord in both the RCCs is that he is the absolute owner of the property in D.No. 26-14-105 and 26-14-106 and he had let out the two premises to both the respondents/tenants separately on a monthly rent of Rs.525/- each and that since his son intended to start business of cycles and spare parts he is in need of both the premises. It is also his case that both the tenants have committed default in payment of rents since 1999 and that they have filed civil suits disputing his title. Though the respondents/tenants are different but their counter is almost same in the RCCs. 20. It is the case of the respondents/tenants in both the RCCs that the petitioner is not the owner of the premises and that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between them and that they have separately obtained electricity connection and paying electricity bills regularly and that they have been in possession of the property since 1964 and that the father of the petitioner never claimed the property till 1976 and therefore, even if the petitioner had any right, as such his father has last his right to make any claim over the property from 1976 onwards. 21. The learned Rent Controller on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence in both the RCCs came to the conclusion that the petitioner/landlord is the owner of the property and that the denial of the title by the respondent is not bonafide and that the respondent has committed default in payment of rents. The appellate rent controller also on re- appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that there is a jural relationship between the petitioner. The courts below also observed that both the tenants in their evidence admitted that they have not paid any tax till this date to the municipal corporation and that mere paying of electricity bills does not confer any title to the tenants. Moreover, both the tenants have filed civil suits seeking declaration of title and for recovery of possession. Admittedly the suits and the appeals arising out of the civil suits have been dismissed. 22. It is well settled law that the current findings recorded by the courts below cannot be interfered by this Court, unless it is shown that the findings of the courts below are perverse and based on no evidence. In the instant case, nothing has been pointed out to show that the findings of the courts bellow are perverse. 23. In the light of the material available on record and in view of the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below basing on the evidence available on record, I do not see any reasons to interfere with the well reasoned orders passed by the lower appellate court. 24. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents/tenants in both the RCCs i.e, the revision petitioners herein are directed to vacate the petition schedule premises on or before 30.7.2011 on condition of payment of rents due within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which the landlord / respondent herein may approach the court for eviction of the petitioner. 25. With the above observations, the revision petitions are disposed of. No costs. _______________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR,J Dt. 04-02-2011 1Mjl/*