HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2118 OF 2009 DATE:29-04-2011 BETWEEN Prathipati Satyanarayana (died) and others …Petitioners AND Nimmagadda Jwalapti Narasimha Sarma …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2118 OF 2009 ORDER: Petitioners-tenants filed this revision under Section 22 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rents and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘Act’) aggrieved by the dismissal of RCCMA.No.6 of 2008 by the Senior Civil Judge-Cum-Appellate Authority under the Act, Vijayawada, dated 9.3.2009 confirming the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in R.C.C.No.90 of 2002, dated 14.12.2007. The petitioners herein will be referred to as ‘tenants’ and the respondent herein will be referred to as ‘landlord’. The landlord filed R.C.C.No.90 of 2002 under section 10(2) (1) of the Act for eviction of the tenants from the suit schedule premises and for handing over the vacant possession and for arrears of rent from October, 2001 onwards. It is the case of the landlord that his deceased-mother leased out the suit schedule premises to Prathipati Satyanarayana-tenant (died) for residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs.45/- apart from actual electricity consumption charges on 1.8.1970 and that the rent was gradually increased and at the time of filing of R.C.C., the monthly rent is Rs.125/- and even after the death of his mother, the original tenant paid the rents to the landlord till September, 2001. In the month of October, 2001, at the advise of the municipal authorities to demolish the schedule premises as it is aged about 90 years and it is in a dilapidated condition, the landlord requested the tenants to vacate the schedule building. Except the present tenants, all other tenants vacated the schedule building and that the landlord demolished 75% of the building except the premises occupied by the tenants herein. The original deceased-tenant requested two months time to vacate the premises and stopped the payment of rents from October, 2001 and defaulted rents for 10 months. Demanding arrears of rents, on issuing notice by the landlord on 25.7.2002, the tenants filed O.S.No.2060 of 2002 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada and obtained injunction order in I.A.No.2621 of 202. It is prayed that the building is required for bona fide use for demolition and construction. On the death of first petitioner-original tenant, petitioners 2 to 5 herein were added as legal representatives of original tenant in I.A.No.980 of 2004. Third petitioner herein filed counter opposing the R.C.C. He denied the rent payable and stated that the first petitioner herein filed R.C.C.No.48 of 2003 and the other petitioners herein filed R.C.C.No.12 of 2004 and deposited the rents to the credit of the latter RCC and further filed O.S.No.2060 of 2002 against the landlord and the same was decreed on contest by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vijaywada. Unless the landlord complies with Section 12 of the Act, he is not entitled to seek eviction and that the landlord without obtaining any approved plan from the Municipal Corporation for demolition and construction, he is not entitled to seek their eviction. The Rent Controller considering the rival claims and also the evidence adduced by the parties, ordered for eviction of the tenants holding that the tenants committed willful default in payment of rents and accepting the plea of the landlord that the premises is required for demolition and construction. The appellate authority, on re-appreciation of entire evidence, dismissed the appeal confirming the findings of the Rent Controller. In the absence of any perversity pointed out to the findings so recorded, the concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with by this Court. Even in the revision, the learned counsel for the petitioners failed to established that the tenants have followed the procedure for deposit of the rents and filed the R.C.C. as alleged in the counter and that they deposited the arrears of rent to the credit of the said R.C.C. with intimation to the landlord about the same for enabling him to withdraw the same. In the absence of any such evidence adduced by the petitioners, ipse dixit statement of the petitioners that they have filed the R.C.C. and deposited the rents cannot be accepted. Both the Courts below have rightly not taken into consideration the oral evidence adduced by the petitioners and rightly held that the tenants have committed willful default in payment of rents. I see no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. However, the petitioners are granted three months time for vacating and handing over the possession of the building subject to their depositing of arrears of rent to the credit of the R.C.C. within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and that they shall continue to pay the future rents on or before 10th of every succeeding month from May, 2011 onwards. They shall also file an undertaking before the Rent Controller to the effect that they will vacate and handover the vacant possession to the landlord by the end of July, 2001. In default of any of the conditions, the landlord is entitled to execute the decree. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. APRIL 29, 2011 Tsr.