HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3746 OF 2010 DATE:03-12-2010 BETWEEN Mallela Lakshmi Narayana …Petitioner AND Tummalapenta Venkat Subba Rao …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3746 OF 2010 ORDER: This is a revision by the tenant under Section 22 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 against the orders of Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Appellate Authority under A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, Vijayawada in R.C.C.M.A.No.89 of 2009, dated 28.6.2010 whereby the learned judge dismissed the appeal confirming the eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, dated 20.11.2009 in R.C.C.No.95 of 2008. The landlord-respondent herein filed R.C.C.No.95 of 2008 under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(3)(iii) and 10(c) (i) (c) of A.P. Buildings (Least, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 seeking eviction of the tenant-petitioner herein and for delivery of vacant possession of the building contending that the petition schedule property was leased out to the petitioner-tenant in April, 1978 on a monthly rent of Rs.400/- which has been enhanced from time to time and at present the rent is at Rs.1,300/-; that the petitioner-tenant is very irregular in payment of rents and committed default from December, 2007 onwards. It was pleaded that the son of the landlord-respondent herein is handicapped person and he has no independent source of income and he is intending to start an automobile business in the entire ground floor of the schedule building and therefore, the building is required for the said purpose. It is stated that the schedule building is non-residential building and that the landlord did not possess any non-residential building in Vijayawada. It is alleged that to harass the landlord, the tenant-petitioner herein filed a suit in O.S.No.127 of 2008 on the file of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada against the wife of the landlord for permanent injunction. Though the landlord got issued a notice on 26.6.2008 and the tenant-petitioner herein having received the same on 27.6.2008 did not pay the rents. The tenant-petitioner contesting the R.C.C. filed a counter contending that he joined as a tenant in the petition schedule property in the month of April, 1978 on a monthly rent of Rs.125/- as per the oral lease agreement between him and the wife of the respondent herein, and that he paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards advance to her. It is alleged that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the respondent and the petitioner herein. The applicable rent is Rs.1100/- and that when the landlady refused to receive the rent, he sent the rent through money order and on her refusal to receive the same, he personally offered the rents for the months from January, 2008 to April, 2008 and when she refused to receive the same, he filed I.A.No.508 of 2008 in O.S.No.127 of 2008 seeking permission of the Court to deposit the rents into the Court which is pending enquiry. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Rent Controller framed necessary points for trial. Considering the evidence brought on record, the Rent Controller observed that the tenant in his cross-examination admitted that the rental receipts are issued by the respondent herein and also admitted that there is no documentary proof to show that he paid advance of Rs.5,000/- to the wife of the respondent and considering those admissions, on point No.1 it was held that the relationship of landlord and tenant is existed between the parties. On point No.2 it was held that there was no offer of rent continuously from December, 2007 onwards and therefore, the tenant-petitioner has intentionally and deliberately did not pay the rents and thus, he has committed willful default in payment of rents. On point No.3, the plea of the respondent about bona fide requirement of premises was negatived. In view of the findings reached on the said points, the Rent Controller allowed the R.C.C. directing the tenant-petitioner to vacate the petition schedule property and put the respondent- landlord in possession of the same within two months. On appeal being filed, the lower appellate authority dismissed the appeal confirming the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller on the ground of willful default in payment of rents. Now, the learned counsel for the landlord-respondent submitted that even during the pendency of the appeal also, the tenant-petitioner has not paid any rents to the landlord nor deposited the rents into the Court. Both the Courts below, on appreciation of entire evidence in proper perspective, concurrently held that the tenant-petitioner herein has committed willful default in payment of rents, and therefore, the said findings of fact cannot be interfered with by this Court. The revision is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted time for eviction of the premises till 31st March, 2011 subject to payment of all arrears of rents, if any, by 15th January, 2011 to the credit of R.C.C. and payment of rent for the month of December, 2010 on or before 5th of January, 2011. The petitioner shall continue to pay the monthly rents on or before 5th of every succeeding month. In default of either payment of arrears of rent or monthly rents, it is open for the respondent- landlord to execute the eviction order. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. DECEMBER 03, 2010 Tsr.