THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4206 OF 2009 DATED: 14.09.2009 Between: Dubbugunta Sai Kumar Reddy .. Petitioner And Vallapareddy Kodandarami Reddy .. Respondent ORDER: This civil revision petition, under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, is directed against the order dated 13.07.2009 passed in R.C.A.No.10 of 2008 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. It appears, the respondent herein, who is the landlord of the petitioner herein, filed R.C.C.No.26 of 2002 on the file of the learned Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the petition schedule premises, on the ground of willful default in payment of rents. The petitioner-tenant resisted the same by filing counter. The learned Rent Controller, after detailed consideration of the matter, found that the petitioner-tenant committed willful default in payment of rents from September 2000 to April 2001 and, accordingly, allowed the R.C.C., on 14.11.2008, directing the petitioner-tenant to vacate the petition schedule premises and deliver vacant possession of the same to the respondent-landlord within two months. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.10 of 2008 to the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, and the learned appellate Judge, having come to the conclusion that there are no valid reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Rent Controller, dismissed the appeal, by the impugned order dated 13.07.2009, and granted two months’ time to the petitioner to deliver vacant possession of the schedule premises to the respondent. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that, even before filing of the present R.C.C. by the respondent, the petitioner had filed R.C.C.No.25 of 2001 seeking permission to deposit the rents for the alleged period of default, which indicates that there is no willful default on the part of the petitioner, but the trial Court as well as the appellate Court did not consider the same and did not view the matter in right perspective. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. A perusal of the orders of both the Courts below would clearly indicate that both the Courts below have considered the question as to ‘whether the petitioner committed willful default in payment of rents’, which is a pure question of fact, in detail, and gave concurrent finding that the petitioner committed willful default in payment of rents. Thus, I am of the opinion that no interference is warranted by this Court under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Rent, Lease and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The civil revision petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed without costs. However, the petitioner is granted time upto 31.12.2009 for vacating the schedule premises and delivering its vacant possession to the respondent, and he shall also furnish an undertaking before the Court below that he would vacate the schedule premises on or before 31.12.2009. However, if the petitioner does not vacate the schedule premises by that date, the respondent-landlord is entitled to take possession of the premises through due process of law. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 14th September, 2009. IBL