THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P.No.4625 of 2008 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 29.08.2008 passed in R.A.No.225 of 2004 by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, in conﬁrming the order passed in R.C.No.493 of 2002 by the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court. The petitioner-landlord ﬁled eviction petition ie., R.C.No.493 of 2002 on two grounds viz., willful default and bona ﬁde requirement for reconstruction of the building. It is not in dispute that the agreed monthly rent is Rs.870/-. The respondent-tenant is carrying on cycle auto business in the premises. The record reveals that his father had taken the premisis on lease about 30 years ago. The period of default according to the petitioner-landlord is from March, 2002 to November, 2002. The respondent-tenant also ﬁled R.C.No.109 of 2003 for permission to deposit the rents into Court. But, there is no need to discuss about the same in detail. Suﬃce to say whether the ﬁndings of the Courts below with regard to the default of payment of rent for the period from April, 2002 to June, 2002 is based on record or not. As far as the allegation of the petitioner-landlord that the rent was not paid even for the month of March, 2002, the same was not accepted by the appellate authority. But, as far as the rent for the month of April to June, 2002 are concerned, the speciﬁc case of the respondent- tenant is that the petitioner-landlord did not pass any receipts when he paid rents for the months from April to June, 2002. It is elicited in the cross- examination and also observed by the appellate authority that the respondent-tenant is maintaining account books and that he is an incometax assessee and that he used to make a note about the payment of rents in his account books and that he had admitted that he did not disclose payment of rents for the month of April to June, 2002 either in his account books or in his income tax returns. An explanation given by the respondent-tenant is that since the petitioner- landlord did not pass any receipts, he did not disclose such payments either in his account books or in his income tax returns. The appellate authority found that this explanation is not satisfactory and not acceptable. Further more, the appellate authority also found that the respondent-tenant did not whisper about the payment of rents from April to June, 2002. Even in Ex.R.2 notice got issued on his behalf on 08.11.2002, he did not whisper about the same and also averred the same in the petition ﬁled by him in R.C.No.109 of 2003. For the ﬁrst time in R.C.No.493 of 2002 he has referred about the payment of rents for the months from April to June, 2002. The only contention of Sri Chandrasekhar Reddy, the learned counsel for the respondent-tenant is that probably it is a mistake committed by the counsel appearing for the respondent in the trial Court with regard to referring the payment of rents either in Ex.R.2 notice or in the averments made in the petition in R.C.No.109 of 2003. But, I am not inclined to accept the contention of Sri R.Chandrasekhar Reddy. The ﬁnding of the appellate authority appears to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record and the same cannot be said to be perverse. No material has been placed to shown that the said ﬁnding is not based upon any evidence. Unless it is shown that ﬁndings of Courts below are perverse, this Court cannot interfere with the same. In view of the said legal position, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the appellate authority holding that the tenant committed default in payment of rents for the months of April to June, 2002. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition ﬁled by the tenant stands dismissed. No costs. ____________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR,J Dt. 22nd November, 2011 PNV