tyIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY THE TWENTYSIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1159 OF 2011 Between: Bajranglal Saini … Petitioner-tenant V/s. G. Sridhar … Respondent- landlord Counsel for the Petitioner-tenant : Sri M. Ramalingeswara Reddy Counsel for the Respondent-landlord : Sri A. Mahadev The Court made the following : (Order follows next page). THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1159 OF 2011. O R D E R : Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner-tenant against the judgment dated 27-12-2010 passed in RA.No. 44 of 2009 by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, reversing the order dated 30-6-2008 passed in RC.No. 321 of 2006 by the II- Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as “landlord” and “tenant”. 4. The tenancy between the parties is admitted which relates to a premises bearing shop No. 4-3-2589/A/F/410 situated in first floor, Koti, Hyderabad. The landlord let out the premises initially in the year 1999 under a lease agreement. The agreed rent at the time of when the premises was initially let out was Rs.1000/- per month. The landlord, however, claims that subsequently there was an agreement between him and the tenant about enhancement by 10% per year from 01-7-2001. The tenant however states that there is no agreement about any such enhancement of rent and the rent is only Rs.1000/- per month. Both courts below recorded a concurrent finding that the landlord failed to prove that there was any enhancement of rent agreed between the parties. The learned Rent Controller held that there is no wilful default in payment of rent committed by the tenant. The learned Rent Controller also held that the landlord failed to prove that his requirement of the premises for personal occupation is bonafide. 5. The learned Appellate Authority under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 reversing the findings recorded by the Rent Controller held that there is wilful default in payment of rents for four years i.e., from 2002 to 2006 and also held that the requirement of the landlord for personal occupation is bonafide. 6. The tenant did not produce any oral evidence and was not even examined himself as witness on his behalf. He however marked Exs.R-1 to R-20 rent receipts through PW-1 and they show the rent paid and accepted was Rs.1000/- only. The crucial aspect is that there is a practice of passing of receipts by the landlord and no receipt has been filed by the tenant to show that he paid rent from March 2002 to 2006. Therefore, the landlord failed to prove that there was enhancement of rent by 10% as agreed. He could be able to establish that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent from 2002 to 2006 i.e., for a period of four years. Further, the landlord could be able to establish that he obtained some technical qualification in doing business in electronics and he required the premises for doing the business in electronics. His evidence is that he worked in Shabari Electronics and gained experience in electronics to commence his own business, which was believed by the learned appellate authority under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act 1960. The appellate authority also pointed out in his judgment that there is no rebutal evidence lead by the tenant. Thus, the learned appellate authority held that the requirement of the landlord to commence his own business in the schedule premises is bonafide one. 7. This Court in exercise of powers of Revision under Section 22 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 will interfere with the findings of the appellate authority only when they are perverse and not based on evidence. In the instant case, there is absolutely no evidence let in by the tenant. He did not even get into the witness box and an adverse inference can be drawn to the effect that he committed wilful default. This apart, the landlord by adducing cogent evidence could be able to establish that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent for a period of four years and that he also require the petition schedule premises for his personal use and occupation to commence business in electronics. The findings recorded by the learned appellate authority under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 do not call for any interference by this Court. 8. For what all stated hereinabove, the judgment passed by the appellate authority under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 in R.A.No. 44 of 2009, dated 27-12-2010 is confirmed. The Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner-tenant is directed to vacate the premises within a period of three months from the date of this order. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE R . KANTHA RAO. 26-07-2011 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1159 OF 2011 CIRCULATION No. 50 Date: 26-07-2011 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43