*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO +C.R.P.No. 3534 of 2010 %16.11.2010 #K.Santosh ………Petitioner vs. $Dr.M.Narsing Rao ………Respondent <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ! Counsel for the petitioner: Sri.K.Venugopal Reddy ^Counsel for the respondent: Sri.Ravi Kondaveeri. ^CASES REFERRED: 1. ALT 1976 39. 2. ALT 1978 503. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO. CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3534 of 2010. ORDER: This revision is filed by the tenant aggrieved by the Judgement dt. 6.7.2010 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.A.No. 135 of 2010, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the order in R.C.No. 107 of 2008 dt. 29.3.2010 passed by the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as landlord and tenant. The landlord filed R.C.No. 107 of 2008 against the tenant seeking his eviction from the petition schedule premises under Section 10(2) (i) of the A.P. Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’) on the ground that he committed wilful default in payment of rents from January, 2005 till filing of the eviction petition and the schedule premises is required under Section 12(1) of the Act on the ground that the schedule premises is in dilapidated condition and it requires reconstruction. The learned Rent Controller accepted the plea of wilful default in payment of rents but negatived the plea under Section 12(1) of the Act and ordered eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule premises, by the order dt. 29.3.2010. Against the said order, the tenant filed R.A.No. 135 of 2010 before the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad who upheld the findings recorded by the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. Against the said Judgement, the present C.R.P. is filed. Since the eviction was ordered on the ground of committing wilful default in payment of rents, this court is concerned only with the said ground. It is to be seen whether this Court can interfere in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act with the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. The contention of the tenant is that the landlord refused to receive rents from January, 2005 and thereupon, he got issued a legal notice dt. 31.1.2006 to the landlord calling upon him to furnish the details of his bank account so that he could deposit the rents in the said bank account but the landlord having received the notice, did not give any reply. Thereafter, the tenant had sent three months’ rent i.e. from December 2005 to February, 2006 by money order dt. 23.2.2006 but the same was refused by the landlord. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the tenant states that he filed R.C.No. 166 of 2008 before the IV Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad seeking permission to deposit the monthly rents from December, 2005. Actually the said R.C. was filed in the year 2006 but the same was returned by the office on 1.12.2006 with certain objections and the same was resubmitted in June, 2008 and thereafter it was numbered as R.C.No. 166 of 2008. In the said R.C. the landlord remained ex parte and consequently it was allowed permitting the tenant to deposit the rents to the credit of the said R.C. It is further stated by the tenant that prior to the filing of the R.C. he filed suit O.S.No. 3448 of 2005 on the file of the 3rd Additional Jr. Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for permanent injunction against the landlord seeking not to evict him forcibly from the schedule premises except by due process of law and the said suit was decreed in favour of the tenant with a direction to the landlord not to evict the tenant from the premises except in accordance with due process of law. However, the fact remains that though the tenant filed R.C.No. 166 of 2008 seeking permission to deposit the rents to the credit of the R.C., the said RC was actually filed in the year 2006 and it was returned with certain objections on 1.12.2006 and the tenant did not represent the same complying with the objections till June, 2008 i.e. he kept quite for a period of two years. It is also pertinent to note that the tenant got numbered the R.C. only after filing of the eviction petition by the landlord and started depositing the rents. This fact was taken note of by the courts below and recorded concurrent findings that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rents and also held that mere filing of a petition under Section 8(5) of the Act does not absolve the wilful default committed by the tenant. The learned Counsel appearing for the tenant relied on a decision in Vemuri Somisett vs. Messers Vagicherla Guravaiah[1] wherein learned single Judge of this Court held that when the landlord refused to receive the rents tendered by the tenant and thereafter the tenant invoking Section 8 of the Act but not depositing the rents in the bank account will not amount to wilful default. The learned Judge further held that the intention in enacting Section 8 of the Act is not to confer a right on the landlord but only a right on the tenant and that Section 8 of the Act is an enabling provision and it does not make obligatory on the part of the tenant to have recourse to the procedure prescribed by Section 8 and he has to abide by the procedure and continue to deposit the rents specified by the landlord. The learned Counsel for the tenant also relied on another decision in M.Venkateswara Rao vs. K.V. Subbamma[2] wherein another learned single Judge of this Court held that the procedure prescribed by or the consecutive steps mentioned in Section 8 of the Act are not mandatory and it cannot be stated as a rule of law that wherever the procedure or the steps mentioned therein are not followed, it must be concluded that the tenant is guilty of wilful default and that even though the procedure under Section 8 is not followed, there may be other circumstances which negative the inference of wilful default. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law enunciated in the above cited decisions. The question is, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, whether can it be held that the tenant did not commit any wilful default in payment of rents. Here is a case wherein the tenant filed R.C. under Section 8(5) of the Act in the year 2006 and got it numbered two years after it was returned by the office with certain objections and during that period he did not take any steps to send the rents to the landlord. Though he pleads that he had sent the rents by money order, no documentary evidence was adduced showing that he sent the rents by money order. A statutory duty is cast upon the tenant to pay the rents and mere filing of a petition under Section 8(5) of the Act does not show bona fides on the part of the tenant without there being any actual deposit of rents. Though the revisional power of the High Court under the Act is wider than the power under Section 115 C.P.C. the authority conferred on the High Court is only to examine the record for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity and propriety of the orders passed by the courts below. The powers of the High Court under Section 20 of the Act cannot be equated with the appellate powers. Therefore, unless the Judgement impugned is not based on evidence on record or it is perverse, the High Court is not supposed to interfere and revise the Judgement passed by the courts below and the High Court cannot substitute its opinion with the findings of the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority. In the instant case, both the courts below have recorded the concurrent findings that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rents and the said findings are based on evidence such as the tenant has not placed any documentary evidence to prove that he tendered rents, and the conduct of the tenant in not getting the RC filed under Section 8 (5) of the Act by him numbered for a period of two years and not depositing the rents during that period. Therefore, the Judgement under revision does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity to be interfered under Section 22 of the Act. Accordingly, the C.R.P. is dismissed. The tenant shall hand over the vacant possession of the petition schedule premises to the landlord within three months from today. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 16.11.2010. LR copy to be marked. B/o: KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO. CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3534 of 2010. ORDER: Dt. 16.11.2010. [1] ALT 1976 39. [2] ALT 1978 503.