HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3138 OF 2008 Date:05-08-2010 Between: Md. Shirajuddin S/o. late Md. Sharif …. Petitioner AND Smt. Bandaru Kamala W/o. Satyanarayana @ Papa …. Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3138 OF 2008 ORDER: Petitioner herein is the tenant, who filed this revision under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. He seeks to assail the orders in an appeal filed by the respondent – landlady. It has been alleged that directing the eviction of the petitioner and setting aside the orders of the Rent Controller, who has initially held that all the grounds, which have been sought for eviction were not made out and dismissed the R.C.C., the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal. 2. The facts, in brief, which gave rise to filing of this revision, are that the respondent - landlady sought eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents and also on personal requirement and change of business. On hearing the learned counsel for both sides and also on appreciation of evidence on record, the Rent Controller did not find favour with the respondent and dismissed the petition. On appeal, the lower appellate Court once again having re- appreciated the entire case and vis-à-vis the findings of the Rent Controller and having held that the petitioner is a wilful defaulter in paying the rents to the respondent and that there is a bona fide personal requirement for the respondent to open a shop for her son, allowed the appeal. Hence, this revision is filed by the petitioner- tenant. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. The scope of the revision is very limited confining to adjudicate as to whether there is any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. However, in case of perversity of the findings of the fact by the Courts below, it is not a bar to reappreciate the evidence on record. 5. A perusal of the evidence adduced on either side makes it clear that the petitioner-tenant has committed default in payment of the rents regularly, as rightly observed by the lower appellate Court and apart from that, the respondent-landlady has proved that she requires the premises in question for her bona fide requirements. In this background of the matter, there is no other go except to concur with the findings of the lower appellate Court. 6. Having regard to the findings arrived at by the lower appellate Court and in the facts and circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the order impugned, does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. Consequently, this revision petition is devoid of merits and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Since the Rent Control Case is of the year 2002, I feel that it is desirable to grant time to the petitioner to vacate the premises. 8. Accordingly, Time is granted for a period of 6 (six) months to the petitioner for vacating the premises in question. __________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J August 05, 2010 KTL