HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:2524 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner-landlady filed this revision against the decree and judgment dated 7.3.2011 passed in R.C.C.M.A.No.25 of 2010 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, confirming the decree and judgment dated 1.2.2010 in R.C.C.No.58 of 2008 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. The petitioner-landlady filed R.C.C.No.58 of 2008 under Section 10(1)(5) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 ( for short “the Act”) seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant, on the grounds of willful default in payment of rents to the schedule shop and personal occupation of the suit schedule shop. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the said RCC on the ground that the tenant already filed an application under Section 8(5) of the Act and he is depositing the rents and it is also evident from Exs.B1 to B26 and therefore, there is no willful default in payment of rents as alleged by the landlady. Insofar as the ground of personal occupation of the schedule shop is concerned, the learned Rent Controller observed that the tenant has been using the schedule shop for non-residential purpose and the petitioner-landlady failed to prove that the schedule shop is suitable for her residential purpose and therefore, the ground of personal occupation is bonafide. Hence, the petitioner-landlady carried the matter in appeal. But the lower appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the Rent Controller. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed by the petitioner-landlady. The grounds raised by the landlady for seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant are willful default and personal requirement. These are the questions of fact to be decided basing on the evidence. On appreciation of the evidence on record, both the Courts below have concurrently found that there is no willful default in payment of rents to the schedule shop and that the petitioner-landlady failed to establish the requirement of the schedule shop as bonafide. It is pertinent to note that this Court while exercising the powers under Section 22 of the Act cannot go into the questions of fact already decided by both the Courts below. The dominant idea conveyed under the Revisional Jurisdiction is one of essential power of superintendence and this Court as a revisional authority has to satisfy itself as to the legality, regularity or of propriety of such proceedings. In the instant case, the concurrent findings of both the Courts below are based on evidence and therefore, they cannot be interfered with by this Court as a revisional authority. Hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice A. Gopal Reddy Date:29th July, 2011 Nn. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:2524 OF 2011 29.7.2011