HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1177 OF 2011 DATE:01-07-2011 BETWEEN Mirza Rashid Beig …Petitioner AND Pathan Ameer Khan and another …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1177 OF 2011 ORDER: Tenant filed this revision under Section 22 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (for short ‘Act’) challenging the orders of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada passed in R.C.C.M.A.No.55 of 2010, dated 01.3.2011 whereby the appeal filed by the tenant against the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in R.C.C.No.66 of 2009, dated 21.7.2010 was dismissed confirming the eviction order. In the R.C.C., the respondents-landlords sought for eviction of the petitioner-tenant on two grounds namely, willful default in payment of rents from May, 2008 onwards and also for personal occupation of the premises. It was alleged that on 10.3.2009 the respondents-landlords demanded the petitioner-tenant to vacate the premises since he failed to pay the rents, but the petitioner-tenant obtained interim orders. Then the respondents-landlords issued Ex.A.2 legal notice demanding the arrears of rent and for eviction. Even after receiving the notice, the petitioner-tenant did not choose to pay the arrears due from May, 2008 onwards and committed willful default. The Rent Controller on point No.2-whether there is any willful default or not, observed that as per Ex.B.2 the rents were paid regularly from March, 2008 to February, 2009 and therefore, the willful default as claimed by the respondents-landlords for the period from March, 2008 onwards cannot be accepted. But it was held that the default is only from March, 2009 onwards and the petitioner-tenant has not taken any steps to deposit the rents by approaching the Court as per Section 8(5) of the Act, which amounts to willful default from March, 2009 onwards and therefore, the respondents-landlords are entitled for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the premises. On point No.3, it was held that the respondents-landlords failed to establish that the schedule premises is required for their personal occupation and therefore, they are not entitled to eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement of the premises. On appeal being filed, the lower appellate authority dismissed the appeal. There is a clear finding by the Rent Controller that there was no willful default for payment of rents from March, 2008 onwards as alleged by the respondents-landlords. But it was observed that the petitioner-tenant failed to pay the rents only from March, 2009 onwards and not following the procedure contemplated under Section 8(5) of the Act for the period subsequent to filing of the R.C.C. i.e. from March, 2009 onwards, which cannot be the subject- matter of R.C.C. since the R.C.C. itself was filed on 17.4.2009 i.e. by that that, if at all, the default is for the month of March, 2009 only. Both the Courts below have not appreciated the pleadings in proper perspective and on conjectures and surmises came to erroneous conclusion that there was willful default in payment of rents on the part of the petitioner-tenant. Under these circumstances, the impugned orders passed by the Courts below are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Rent Controller to decide the issue afresh uninfluenced by any of the findings recorded earlier, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Parties are at liberty to adduce such further evidence in respect of their claims. The revision is accordingly allowed. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. JULY 01, 2011 Tsr.