THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4602 of 2009 ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the Order dated 30.04.2009 in Rent Control Appeal No.1 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Repalle, whereunder and whereby the order dated 9.11.2006 in Rent Control Case No.1 of 2005 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Repalle in ordering eviction of the petitioner/tenant was confirmed. 2. The petitioner herein is the tenant, and the respondent herein is the landlord, of the schedule premises. For sake of convenience, the petitioner and the respondent herein are hereinafter referred to, as ‘the tenant’ and ‘the landlord’ respectively. 3. The landlord filed the Rent Control Case before the trial Court stating that he is the absolute owner of the schedule premises and he leased out the schedule premises to the tenant in the month of May, 1997 orally at a rent of Rs.550/- per month, and the tenant agreed to enhance the rent @ Rs.100/- per month after completion of every two years. Since October, 2003 onwards, the tenant failed to pay the agreed rent willfully. The landlord requested him to pay the arrears of rent and vacate the premises in question, as the same is required for his personal occupation. Having agreed to vacate the premises, the tenant surprisingly filed Original Suit No.101 of 2004 before the trial Court seeking permanent injunction in order evade payment of rent and vacate the premises. The suit was decreed granting permanent injunction till he is evicted under due process of law. Simultaneously, the tenant filed R.C.C. No.3 of 2004 before the learned Rent Controller, Repalle and filed therein I.A. No.446 of 2004 for permission to deposit rent @ Rs.550/- per month, which was allowed on 28.7.2005 without prejudice to the contentions of both the parties. The tenant has to pay rent @ Rs.850/- per month from October, 2003 to May, 2005, but he deposited @ Rs.550/- per month only in the court. So, for willful default for payment of rent, the tenant is liable to be evicted from the premises in question. Further, the landlord was residing in Tenali and he suffered huge loss in hotel business. So, he wanted to shift along with his family to Repalle and the premises in question is required for his residence as he has no other house in Repalle. The landlord got issued registered notice on 24.10.2005 calling upon the tenant to vacate the schedule premises by paying arrears of rent, but he failed to do so. Hence, the R.C.C. 4. The tenant filed counter denying the allegations in the petition and stating inter alia that he is paying enhanced rent @ Rs.550/- per month. He spent nearly Rs.50,000/- for repairs to the premises at the request of the landlord, and the landlord promised to sell the premises to him for the price prevailing in local market value by deducting the said amount spent by him from the sale consideration. The landlord and his men along with rowdy elements, were trying to forcibly evict him from the premises and so, he had no other choice except to file Original Suit No.101 of 2004 for injunction. His family is situated in Repalle presently. The landlord is not residing in Tenali, but is residing at Repalle doing hotel business and having own houses. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the R.C.C. 5. During enquiry, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 and P2 were got marked, on behalf of the landlord, and R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R1 and R2 were got marked, on behalf of the tenant. 6. The trial Court, upon considering the evidence on record, allowed the Rent Control Case directing the tenant to vacate the schedule premises. On appeal by the tenant, the said order was confirmed by the appellate court vide the impugned order. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 7. Heard both sides. 8. Revisional powers 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. On two grounds, the trial court ordered eviction of the tenant viz. firstly, that the tenant committed willful default in payment of rents; and secondly, that the petition schedule premises is required for bona fide purpose of the landlord. To know whether the findings are correct or not, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 has to be assessed and evaluated objectively. Their evidence is clear that P.W.1 is residing in Tenali and is carrying on hotel business, and that he sustained loss in hotel business and is intending to shift his family to Repalle and he has no other residential premises in Repalle. Except suggesting to P.W.1 that he has another residential house in Repalle, nothing has been elicited to discredit his testimony. No material is filed to show that P.W.1 has another residential premises. When P.W.1 is having only one residential house, then it can be presumed that it is required for his bona fide personal requirement. R.W.1 does not know where P.W.1 is residing and his avocation. R.W.1 went to the extent of denying the jural relationship of landlord and tenant. There is ample evidence to show that R.W.1 took the premises in question on rent from P.W.1. The evidence of R.W.1 is mutually contradictory. That is the reason why both courts below had not placed any implicit reliance on his evidence. 10. Coming to the second ground of willful default, admittedly, in another proceedings, rent was fixed at Rs.550/- per month. It was stated that the tenant agreed to enhance the rent by Rs.100/- per month once in two years. R.W.1 admitted that P.W.1 was giving receipts whenever he was paying rents. R.W.1 has not filed even a single receipt to show that he has not committed default in payment of agreed rents. R.W.1 has to pay rent @ Rs.850/- per month from the month of June, 2005, but he was depositing rent @ Rs.550/- per month in R.C.C. No.4 of 2004 on the file of the Rent Controller, Repalle. When R.W.1 was having receipts issued by P.W.1 to show about payment of rents every month, he purposefully withheld those receipts and did not file them into the court. When it is the specific case of the landlord that the tenant is not paying the rents and admittedly landlord was issuing receipts, then it is imperative on the part of the tenant to produce the receipts. Considering the material on record, both the courts below appreciated the evidence in a right perspective. None of the findings of the courts below is shown to be illegal or improper or perverse. It is not a case of misreading of evidence. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 11. However, considering the fact that the petitioner is the tenant of the schedule premises since the year 1997, reasonable time can be granted to him to vacate the schedule premises to enable him to make arrangements for securing alternative accommodation. Therefore, three months’ time is granted to the petitioner/tenant to vacate the schedule premises and he shall vacate the schedule premises on or before 3.5.2011. It is made clear that the petitioner shall pay the arrears of rent, if any, due and continue to pay the same till the date of vacating the premises. 11. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 3.2.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4602 of 2009 3.2.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4602 of 2009 3.2.2011 Between: D.Bala Nageswara Rao …Petitioner And T.Madhava Rao …Respondent