IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition Nos.5361 and 5362 of 2007 Between: Challa Maheswara Rao and another .. Petitioners AND Hindu College Committee, represented by its Secretary & Correspondent, having its office at Hindu College, G.T. Road, Guntur and another .. Respondents COMMON ORDER: Civil Revision Petition No.5361 of 2007 is directed against the judgment in R.C.A. No.11 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Guntur, dated 29-09-2007, whereas Civil Revision Petition No.5362 of 2007 is directed against the judgment in R.C.A. No.12 of 2000 on the file of the same Court, dated 29-09-2007. The petitioners/landlords in both the cases are one and the same and the 1st respondent before the Rent Controller in both the cases is also one and the same, the second respondents being respectively claimed to be the sub-lessees of the 1st respondent. R.C.C. No.53 of 1997 was filed by the landlord for eviction of the revision petitioners herein from that petition schedule property alleging that the premises was taken on lease for running a tea stall by the 1st revision petitioner who committed wilful default in payment of rent from March, 1993 and also sublet the premises to the 2nd revision petitioner for running a tailoring shop called ‘Fashion Touch’. The landlord also claimed that it has been decided to keep the entire road free from obstructions so as to provide space for parking all vehicles of the students, staff and the public. The revision petitioners resisted the claim denying all the three grounds on which eviction is sought and contended that running of a tailoring shop was acquiesced by the landlord since four years, while the alleged requirement for providing parking space is not factual or legal. The alleged arrears of rent are also false and they desired the request to be negatived. P.W.1 and R.W.1 were examined during enquiry by the Rent Controller and Exs.A.1 to A.3 and B.1 were marked. The Rent Controller in his order, dated 11-10-1999 after referring to the rival contentions and the evidence, had come to the conclusion that the 1st revision petitioner herein failed to pay the rent for 19 months during the period from March, 1993 to August, 1999 by 10th of every month and committed wilful default in those months. The Rent Controller also concluded that the premises is governed by the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 and the bona fide personal requirement of the landlord for providing space for the students, staff and others visiting Hindu College, has to be upheld. The Rent Controller also upheld the plea of sub-lease in favour of the 2nd respondent and conversion of nature of business without the consent and permission of the landlord and accordingly directed eviction within two months from the date of the order. In appeal in R.C.A. No.11 of 2000, the Appellate Authority concurred with the findings of fact by the Rent Controller concerning the bona fide personal requirement of the landlord and also wilful default, while differing with the Rent Controller concerning the conclusion of sub-letting. Still on the two proved valid grounds for eviction, the Appellate Authority also confirmed the order of the Rent Controller. R.C.C. No.57 of 1997 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum- Principal junior Civil Judge, Guntur is filed for eviction of the revision petitioners in C.R.P. No.5362 of 2007 from that petition schedule property on the ground that the 1st revision petitioner permitted the 2nd revision petitioner to run a hotel in the premises contrary to the terms of the lease apart from committing wilful default in payment of rents from December, 1993. Bona fide personal requirement of the landlord is also pleaded as a ground for eviction. The revision petitioners resisted the claim on similar grounds contending that huge investments were made in respect of the business being run in the premises and the 2nd revision petitioner is only a worker under the 1st revision petitioner. The claims of wilful default in payment of rents and bona fide personal requirement are also denied and the petition was requested to be dismissed with costs. During the enquiry into the petition, P.W.1 and R.W.1 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.3 and B.1 to B.3 were marked. The Rent Controller in his order, dated 11-10-1999 concluded that there was wilful default in payment of rents from December, 1993 and the schedule premises is required for purpose of the college for use as parking space. The Rent Controller, of course, also concluded in favour of the landlord in respect of the alleged sub- lease also and directed eviction within two months. In R.C.A. No.12 of 2000 before the Appellate Authority, the judgment was delivered on 29-09-2007 in which the Appellate Authority concurred with the findings of the Rent Controller in respect of bona fide personal requirement of the landlord and also wilful default in payment of rents, while the alleged sub-lease was not upheld. Still the order of the Rent Controller was confirmed on the first two grounds. In both the revision petitions, the main grounds of challenge against the orders of eviction are based on absence of proof of wilful default and bona fide requirement and also with reference to Section 10 (4) (ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. Smt. W.V.S. Rajeswari, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri N. Srirama Murthy, learned counsel for the respondents are heard at length. The point that arises for consideration in both the revision petitions is whether the liability of the revision petitioners for eviction has been rightly concluded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority ? Point: In so far as Section 10 (4) (ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 is concerned, the same is a provision against an order of eviction in respect of a building which has been left for use as an educational institution recognized by the Government or any empowered authority and how such a provision can be taken advantage by the tenant or sub-tenant of an educational institution is unintelligible and incomprehensible. The finding of the Appellate Authority in both the cases about the alleged sub-lease not being proved by the landlord has to be considered as having become final in the absence of any challenge by the landlord by way of any appropriate proceeding. In so far as the claim of bona fide personal requirement of the landlord in respect of the premises is concerned, it was a finding of fact by the Rent Controller which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority. In R.C.C. No.53 of 1997, the Rent Controller also concluded relying on the relevant precedents that the evidence of P.W.1 was clear that in view of the increased number of students, staff members and others who are visiting the Hindu College, more space is required for parking the vehicles of those persons. The evidence of R.W.1 was noted as containing material admissions in this regard, due to which the bona fide personal requirement has to be upheld. Similar are the findings of the Rent Controller in R.C.C. No.57 of 1997 also on more or less identical evidence before him. In appeals, the Principal Senior Civil Judge/Appellate Authority did not find any reason to differ from the said conclusion and recognized that any expanding educational institution needs to constantly augment its infrastructural facilities and there is every need for the landlords to resume the schedule properties in both the cases for conversion into parking area for use of the students or lecturers. This concurrent finding of fact based on positive evidence in both the cases cannot be lightly interfered with in revision without any factual basis. In view of the conclusions of this Court about proof of such requirement, the question of proof of wilful default needs no further consideration. It is suffice to note that the findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority in this regard also based on positive evidence do not appear to be open for interference in exercise of restricted revisional jurisdiction, which does not permit reappreciation of the facts as if it were an appeal. The learned counsel for the landlords Sri N. Srirama Murthy referred to A. Satyanarayan Shah v. M. Yadgiri[1] in this regard, wherein the Apex Court pointed out that the High Court cannot reappreciate the evidence like an appellate Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The learned counsel also referred to the orders of this Court in C.R.P. No.1362 of 2007, dated 13-07-2007, wherein the learned Judge concluded under similar circumstances that the tenant is bound to vacate the premises. As any reappreciation of evidence cannot be indulged in, in both the petitions, the civil revision petitions have to accordingly fail. However, Smt. W.V.S. Rajeswari, learned counsel for the revision petitioners requested for grant of six months time to vacate the respective premises in order to safeguard the interests of the revision petitioners in the respective businesses being run in the premises. Sri N. Srirama Murthy, learned counsel for the landlords only opposed grant of any unreasonable time. Having due regard to the facts and circumstances in both the cases including the fact that the landlords were unable to evict the revision petitioners since about 13 years, grant of three months time to the revision petitioners to vacate the respective premises will be reasonable and just. Therefore, both the civil revision petitions are dismissed without costs, but the revision petitioners in both the cases are granted time till 31-10-2010 to vacate and deliver possession of the respective premises to the landlords. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 15-07-2010 Svv [1] (2003) 1 Supreme Court Cases 138