THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3341 of 2009 Date: 07.08.2009 Between: Koyyana Markandeyulu ….Petitioner And Urlanka Ramanamma ….Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.T.V.S.P.RAO Counsel for the Respondent: THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER: This is a tenants revision petition under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’) assailing the correctness of the order, dated 01.05.2009, passed by the Appellate Authority under Rent Control Act (Principal Senior Civil Judge), Rajahmundry in R.C.A.No.8 of 2006, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner/tenant confirming the eviction order, dated 24.01.2006 passed by the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry in R.C.C.No.12 of 2002. For the purpose of convenience, the parties hereinafter would be referred to as the landlady and the tenant. The landlady purchased the schedule property from the erstwhile landladies, who leased out the schedule property to the tenant, under Ex.A.1- registered sale deed, dated 07.03.2001. She got issued a notice to the tenant on 15.02.2002 under Ex.A.2 requesting him to pay the arrears of rent and to vacate the schedule premises. Thereafter, she filed the above R.C.C on 02.04.2002 seeking eviction of the tenant from the schedule premises for bona fide requirement, in which, the tenant made his appearance through his counsel on 12.06.2002 and filed a counter on 23.07.2002. Later, the tenant got issued a legal notice on 02.09.2002 to the erstwhile landladies Molli Radha and Usha Rani demanding them to furnish bank account number for enabling him to deposit the rents. Alleging that they are refusing to receive the rents, he filed R.C.C.No.43 of 2002 under Section 9 of the Act seeking permission of the Court to deposit the rents into the Court. Hence, the learned Rent Controller clubbed both the R.C.Cs. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the landlady, the landlady herself was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. On behalf of the tenant, his daughter was examined as R.W.1 and one more witness was examined as R.W.2 and Exs.B.1 to B.10 were marked. Considering the material available on record, the learned Rent Controller held that except the schedule building, there is no other building to the landlady in and around Rajahmundry Town; that the requirement of the schedule premises by the landlady is bona fide; that after purchasing the said property the landlady always used to visit the same; and that the tenant is the distant relative of erstwhile landladies, and therefore, the plea of the tenant that he is not aware of the sale deed executed in favour of the landlady cannot be believed. It was further held that the tenant is having a two portioned building near Rajahmundry Town as admitted by R.W.1, who is none other than the daughter of the tenant; and that though it was contended that the tenant could not give evidence as he was not in position to move from the bed, no positive evidence was adduced to prove the same, and therefore, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the tenant has committed willful default in payment of rents to the landlady and accepted the plea of the landlady that the schedule premises is required for her bona fide requirement and accordingly ordered eviction of the tenant. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant preferred the appeal and the same was dismissed by the lower appellate Court confirming the findings recorded by the Rent Controller. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition. The conduct of the tenant, as discussed by both the Courts below, shows that he was having knowledge of purchase of the schedule property by the landlady, and though notice was issued to him intimating the purchase, he did not pay the rent. Further, even after filing the present R.C.C for eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement and willful default in payment of rents, issuing notice by the tenant to the erstwhile landladies and filing R.C.C.No.43 of 2002 seeking permission of the Court to deposit the rents into the Court shows volumes of his conduct. In view of the same, the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below ordering eviction of the tenant are unassailable and the same do not suffer from any manifest illegality warranting interference of this Court. The Civil Revision Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, four months time is granted to the petitioner/tenant to vacate the schedule premises subject to the condition of his paying the entire arrears of rent and continue to pay the future rents on or before 5th of every succeeding month, and on filing an undertaking before the Rent Controller that he will vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the respondent/landlady on or before 1st January, 2010. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 07.08.2009 va