THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6181 of 2009 ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent, Eviction Control) Act, 1960, is directed against the Judgment dated 30.09.2009 in R.A. No.232 of 2007 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the order dated 21.9.2007 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad in R.C No.50 of 2006, was confirmed. 2. The petitioner herein is the tenant and the respondents herein are landlords. For better appreciation of facts, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court. 3. The brief facts are, the petitioners filed R.C. No.50 of 2006 before the Rent Controller for eviction stating that they are owners and landlords of house bearing no.3-15- 633, Tirumalgherry village, Secunderabad cantonment; that, the respondent is its tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.30/-, and the tenancy is oral and month to month; that the respondent committed willful default in payment of rent from 1.5.2002 to end of February, 2006 amounting to Rs.1,380/- and hence, the petition for her eviction. 4. The respondent filed counter admitting ownership of petitioners over the schedule house, her tenancy, but denying the default and contending that she was paying rents regularly to one Mr. John, who was issuing receipts after receipt of rent; that the said John filed R.C. No.168 of 2000 against the respondent on the ground of self- occupation, and the said case was dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller on 19.4.2002 after detailed enquiry and the order has become final; that, the respondent used to send rent by way of money order and the same was acknowledged by Mr. John; that the petitioners are trying to take advantage of the situation as the respondent is an illiterate and ignorant; that, to meet medical expenses of said late John, the petitioner sent rents in advance with an understanding that the same would be adjusted towards rents, and hence, the respondent has not committed any default. Hence, she prayed to dismiss the case. 5. The trial Court, upon considering the evidence on record, came to conclusion that the tenant committed default in payment of rents and accordingly ordered eviction. The order of the trial Court was confirmed in appeal. Hence, the present revision. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no default committed by the tenant and by virtue of Exs.R1 to R32, the petitioner was sending advance rents by way of money orders and that when a petition was filed to summon Postman, it was dismissed; that there is conflict in findings arrived by the trial court and the appellate court, and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that concurrent findings of the courts below need not be interfered with, inasmuch as none of the findings is shown to be perverse or contrary to the record, and hence, he prays to dismiss the revision. 8. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The petitioner is the tenant and the respondents are landlords. On the ground that the tenant committed default in payment of rents for the period from 1.5.2002 to February, 2006, the petition for eviction was filed. The respondent filed counter showing the amounts paid by her. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner used to pay advance rents. But, whenever the tenant paid over and above the agreed rent of Rs.30/- towards advance amount, there was no need for her to pay again Rs.30/- towards rent in the succeeding month. Therefore, her own statement shows that the tenant was not paying rents regularly and she committed default. Further, the tenant has not produced any document to show that she paid rents after 21.1.2003 till the month of February, 2006. 9. Admittedly, there were disputes between the tenant and the landlords, as, earlier to the present petition, the landlord filed a case for eviction on the ground of requirement of schedule property for self-occupation. That petition was dismissed. For that reason, it is the case of the tenant that she had been sending the rents by way of money order. Such is the case, the tenant ought to have sent money orders in respect of the rents payable from 1.5.2002 to February, 2006. Not even a single scrap of paper is filed to show that she paid the rents. The trial Court as well as the appellate court have not placed any reliance on the documents Ex.R1 to R32 because signatures in those documents are not tallying, and that some of the documents do not contain postal stamps, and that the signatures on those documents have been disputed by the landlords. The findings appear to be correct because in some documents, thumb impression of the recipient was found whereas in some of the documents signature was found. It is for the tenant to explain as to why some of the documents contain thumb impressions; some of the documents contain signatures, and why some of the documents do not contain postal stamp. Therefore, for the valid and cogent reasons, both the trial Court as well as the appellate court found Exs.R1 to R32 as suspicious documents, and rightly no implicit reliance has been placed on those documents. Even assuming for a moment that under those documents, the tenant paid the rents, still there is absolutely no explanation for the default committed for the period from February, 2003 to February, 2006. Since the plea of non- payment of rents also covers from the period from 1.2.2003 to February, 2006, the respondent is liable for eviction. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. 10. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 23.11.2010 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6181 of 2009 23.11.2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6181 of 2009 23.11.2010 Between: Smt. Sheela …Petitioner And J.Harry Paul & others …Respondents