THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI Civil Revision Petition No. 3467 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, is filed by the petitioner/tenant aggrieved against the Judgment, dated 01.06.2009, passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, in R.A. No. 282 of 2006, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the order, dated 20.09.2006, made in R.C. No. 97 of 1997 by the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. The respondent herein is the absolute owner of the petition schedule premises while the petitioner herein is the tenant. The case of the respondent/landlord is that the petitioner/tenant is irregular in payment of rent and failed to pay the rent from April 1996 to December 1996 for a period of 9 months @ Rs.150/- amounting to Rs.1,350/- and from January, 1997 to February, 1997 @ Rs.180/- per month amounting to Rs.360/- and he is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,710/-. Therefore, he prayed for eviction of the petitioner/tenant on the ground of willful default. The case of the petitioner/tenant is that respondent/landlord used to receive the rent at irregular intervals as to his convenience as no dates of payments were fixed. In the year 1986 as the respondent/landlord stopped receiving the rent, he constrained to deposit the same in the respondent’s bank account bearing No.2309 at Central Bank of India, Pathargatti, Hyderabad. Thereafter, the respondent again requested to pay the rent directly and he used to collect the rent according to his convenience. Again the respondent stopped receiving the rent in the year 1987, as such he sent the rent through M.O. for that period. He denied the willful default in payment of rent. On behalf of the landlord, 9th respondent herein was examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-4, while on behalf of the tenant, he was examined as RW-1 and got marked Exs.R1 to R7. The trial court on extensive consideration of the contentions raised before it, observed that the petitioner/tenant committed willful default in payment of rent for the period alleged in the petition and there is jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent and accordingly, allowed the petition directing the petitioner/tenant to vacate the premises within a period of three months. Aggrieved thereby, the tenant preferred appeal in R.A. No. 282 of 2006 and the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, dismissed the appeal, confirming the order passed by the learned Rent Controller and granted two months time to vacate the premises and hand over the vacant possession of the petition schedule premises. Aggrieved by the said order, the tenant preferred this Revision Petition. As can be seen from the judgment of the courts below, the jural relationship of the petitioner and the respondent is established, by virtue of the overwhelming evidence available on record and admissions made by the tenant. As regards the willful default in payment of rent by the petitioner/tenant, the lower appellate Court found that the rent receipts filed under Exs.R.1 to R.4 along with translation shows that the petitioner-tenant used to pay the rent in irregular manner. The lower appellate Court also found that Ex.R.6, which shows that the petitioner/tenant paid the rent from September, 1996 to February, 1997 at a time on 12.9.1996 in advance, is a forged document and it further found that though the petitioner/tenant pleaded that the respondent/landlord issued the rent receipts in irregular manner, but he admitted in his cross examination that whenever he tendered the rent, the respondent/landlord used to issue the receipts on the same day. The lower appellate Court further found that the petitioner/tenant failed to explain why he paid the rent from September, 1996 to February, 1997 under Ex.R.6 in advance, which was proved to be a forged one. In view of the observations made by the Courts below and on perusal of the material available on record, I have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner/tenant has committed willful default in payment of rent for the period alleged by the respondent/landlord. Hence, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed granting time upto 31.12.2009 to vacate the petition schedule premises. No order as to costs. _________________________ Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari 18th September, 2009 skmr