THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.3430 of 2011 Date of Order: 21-10-2011 Between: Syed Ateeq ..Petitioner and K.V.Ramamohan ..Respondent The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.3430 of 2011 Oral order: Petitioner/tenant filed this revision under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short “the Act”) against the orders of the Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Appellate Authority under the Act, Vijayawada dismissing the appeal filed by him and confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in R.C.C.No.130 of 2008, dated 31-05-2008 holding that the tenant committed willful default in payment of rents. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as arrayed in the court below. Respondent/landlord filed a petition under Section 10(2)(i) of the Act stating that in the ground floor of the schedule property bearing D.No.19/14- 20-19 near Guru Hotel, Besant Road, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada the petitioner/tenant was inducted on a monthly rent of Rs.1,250/- where he is running foot wear business.; from the beginning onwards the tenant was irregular in payment of rents and committed wilful default in payment of rents from July, 2006 and liable to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/-. Therefore, the landlord got issued notice dated 25-09-2008 but the petitioner/tenant wantonly returned the same with false endorsement. The tenant filed counter denying the allegations stating that he paid monthly rents upto October, 2008 and thereafter, he made believe that the landlord would come and collect the rent. He invested Rs.1,00,000/- towards repairs and remodeling the tenanted premises and he deposited Rs.20,000/- with the father of the landlord refundable at the time of vacating the premises. During the pendency of the proceedings the landlord filed a petition under Section 11(4) of the Act claiming arrears of rent, which was allowed and pursuant to the same amounts due were deposited as directed. No evidence has been adduced by the landlord. On behalf of the tenant R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and no documents are marked. The learned Rent Controller disbelieving the theory set up by the tenant that he paid rents to the agent of the landlord upto October, 2008 and receipts are filed; further, without any demur he complied the order passed in Section 11(4) petition by depositing entire arrears of rent which itself shows that he has committed wilful default and cannot wriggle out from wilful default and accordingly ordered for eviction. On appeal being filed the lower appellate court confirmed the same. Questioning the same the present revision has been filed. Sri K.Sarvabhouma Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant contends that landlord has not entered into witness box or examined any other witness on his behalf. Therefore, presumption can be drawn that tenant has paid the rents to the landlord upto October, 2008. In support of the same reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in M.VIKURATAN v. MAHENDER KUMAR GANDHI[1]. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord supported the order of eviction by drawing the findings recorded by the court below. It is not in dispute that the landlord filed an application under Section 11(4) of the Act for deposit of the rents due for enabling the tenant to continue. On allowing the application the petitioner/tenant deposited an amount of Rs.47,500/- towards arrears. When the tenant himself examined as R.W.1 where he stated that father of the landlord used to collect rents till 2006, subsequently he paid rents to the elder son by name, Subrahmanyam and in the cross-examination he stated that he did not possess any proof to show that he paid the rents to the landlord. He further deposed that he do not know the name and address of the relative/agency who collected the rent on behalf of the landlord and to whom he paid rents which itself shows that the plea set up by tenant that he paid rents upto October, 2008 to the landlord and thereafter to his agent is not correct. The lower court rightly disbelieved the evidence of R.W.2 who is doing business in Woodpet that he was present at all occasions when the tenant paid the rent. Further, payment of Rs.40,000/- to the previous tenant agreeing to repay the same at the time of vacating the premises has not been established. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rents, this Court do not find any ground to entertain the revision and it is accordingly dismissed. However, petitioner/tenant is granted time till the end of February, 2012 for vacating and handing over the schedule premises on condition of the petitioner/tenant files an undertaking before the Rent Controller that he will vacate and handover the schedule premises by the end of February, 2012 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and continues to pay the monthly rents payable by him on or before 10th of succeeding month. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 21-10-2011 Murthy [1] 2005(6) ALD 439