THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 247 of 2008 ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, ‘the Act, 1960), is filed challenging the order dated 05.06.2007 in C.M.A. No.23 of 2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narsapuram, whereunder and whereby the order dated 27.6.2001 in R.C.C. No.7 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum- Rent Controller, Narsapuram, was confirmed. 2. The respondents/landlords filed Rent Control Case No.7 of 1995 before the learned Rent Controller under Section 10 of the Act, 1960 for eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the petition schedule premises and put them in possession of the same by determining the lease, on the ground of willful default of rent for the period from December, 1989. The petitioner/tenant filed counter stating that in a meeting held on 14.8.1991, the respondents agreed to dispose of the petition schedule premises to him for Rs.2,25,000/-, but without executing registered sale deed, present petition is filed for eviction; that he got issued a notice to the respondents in this regard and that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondents and petitioner from the date of the meeting; that, in view of the meeting result, though he is not paying rents, he is not a defaulter; that, the rent is only Rs.60/- per month, but not Rs.700/- per month. 3. The trial court clubbed the Rent Control Case with Original Suit Nos.41 of 1995 and 53 of 1995 between the same parties, which are filed for recovery of rent by the landlords and specific performance by the tenant, and recorded common evidence in Original Suit No.41 of 1995 covering the other two cases. 4. During trial, P.Ws. 1 to 7 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked, on behalf of respondents/landlords, and D.Ws. 1 to 7 were examined and Exs.B1 to B10 were marked, on behalf of the petitioner/tenant. 5. The trial court, placing reliance on the evidence of P.W.1, who is landlord that the tenant committed default in payment of rents in respect of the premises in question, ordering eviction of the petitioner/tenant, while decreeing the suit for recovery of rent and dismissing the suit for specific performance, by its common judgment dated 27.6.2001. Aggrieved by the common judgment of the trial court in so far it relates to Rent Control Case No.7 of 1995, the petitioner/tenant filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.23 of 2001 before the appellate court, and vide the impugned order, the appellate court dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the trial court. Challenging the same, the present revision is preferred by the tenant. 6. Now, the point for consideration is whether the findings of the courts below are perverse or not based on evidence on record ? 7. Heard both sides. 8. Revisional jurisdiction of this court is residual and supervisory jurisdiction. Ordinarily, it can be exercised by this Court when the findings of the courts below are perverse or admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration or the evidence has been misread. Therefore, in short, there must be perverse findings were given by both the courts so as to call for interference by this Court. 9. The courts below ordered the eviction of the petitioner/tenant on the ground of willful default. The evidence of P.W.1 would also go to show that the petitioner/tenant committed default in payment of rent from 1989. The petitioner/tenant admitted that he is not paying rent in respect of the petition schedule premises since December, 1989. The tenant has not given any cogent explanation for not paying the rent from the said period. His contention that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondents and petitioner from the date of the meeting, cannot be accepted. 10. The trial Court rightly held that the petitioner/tenant is liable for eviction on the ground of willful default in payment of rents, and the same was rightly confirmed by the appellate court. None of the findings of the courts below is shown to be illegal or improper or perverse. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 11. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 17.2.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 247 of 2008 17.2.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 247 of 2008 17.2.2011 Between: Thota Venkata Naga Srinu …Petitioner And Kosuri Satyanarayana (died) & others …Respondents