IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.842 of 2002 Between: Sunkara Satyavathi (died) and others ... PETITIONERS AND Lukka Ratnam (died) and others ... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This revision is for the tenant under Section 22 of the Rent Control Act, 1960. The petitioner seeks to challenge the concurrent findings of both the courts below recoded against him, upholding the willful default in payment of rent as well as bonafide personal requirement as pleaded by the landlord. 2. The brief facts of the case are: That the petitioner is a tenant in the suit schedule belonging to the respondent – landlord. The petitioner committed default in payment of rent. The rent payable is Rs.165/- per month and the tenant committed willful default in payment of rent for a period of August 1982 to January 1983. The respondent – landlord also pleaded that he requires the suit schedule for the purpose of his eldest son’s business which he desires to set up. 3. The petitioner – tenant resisted the eviction petition by contending that he had sent money orders covering the rent from August, 1982 to December, 1982 under Money Order dated 18-01- 1983, but the same was refused by the respondent – landlord on 31-01-1983. The tenant states that he has again sent the said rent on 03-02-1983 by Money Order and the same was also refused again by the respondent – landlord. Apart from that the petitioner – tenant states that he has filed R.C.C.No.49 of 1983 under Section 8 (5) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act and accordingly, he has deposited the rents as per the orders in the RCC and therefore, there is no willful default. 4. To the extent of personal requirement pleaded, the petitioner – tenant stated that the respondent is already having a shop and the son of the respondent – landlord can as well carry on business in the said shop. 5. On evidence, both the courts found that the plea of willful default is justified inasmuch as the petitioner failed to pay the rent within time stipulated and money orders sent subsequently were not covering the entire period of default and as such, the respondent – landlord is justified in refusing to receive the said money orders. The Courts below also found that even if the three months advance rent deposited by the petitioner – tenant with the respondent – landlord is adjusted still there would be default for few more months. The ground of willful default was therefore, upheld and eviction was ordered by both the Courts below. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Courts below have not taken into consideration the affect of the order in R.C.C.No.49 of 1983 passed under Section 8 (5) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act and as the tenant is depositing rents for the same period there cannot be a willful default. The said contention is liable to be rejected for the simple reason that while the present rent control case for eviction was filed by the respondent – landlord on 09-02-1983 claiming willful default from August, 1982 to January, 1983, the petitioner – tenant has filed R.C.C.No.49 of 1983 under Section 8 (5) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act only on 22-02-1983 by the time the petitioner – tenant has resorted to the said application seeking deposit of rents, the default has already set-in and the conduct of the petitioner – tenant shows that the default is willful. The findings of both the Courts below on that ground cannot be said to be perverse and therefore, not open for interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this court. 7. So far as the ground of personal requirement is concerned, it is evident from the record that the respondent – landlord was carrying on business in a rented premises and as such, he, having vacated the said premises long back, it cannot be said that the said premises is available to the respondent for the purpose of his son. The requirement pleaded by the respondent – landlord, therefore, cannot be said to be not bona fide. The findings of both the Courts below on this ground also are clearly sustainable and I do not find any perversity in the said finding as well. Consequently, therefore, this Revision Petition is devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 8. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some time may be granted as the petitioner is carrying on business in this suit premises for several decades. 9. In view of these facts and circumstances, therefore, I deem it appropriate to grant time till the end of September 2010 to enable the petitioner to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the respondent – landlord, subject to the condition that petitioner shall undertake before the learned Rent Control within two weeks from today, that he shall not alienate or create any third party interest with respect to schedule premises and shall pay rents up to September, 2010 up to date to the respondent – landlord. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent be permitted to withdraw the amount deposited towards rent by the petitioner – tenant. The learned counsel for the petitioner graciously said that he has no objection. Hence, liberty is given to the respondent to make an appropriate application before the concerned Court for withdrawal of the deposited rent. ____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J April 08, 2010. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.842 of 2002 April 08, 2010