THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3905 OF 2006 DATED: 03.03.2011 Between: P.Agamma (died) & another. .... PETITIONERS And Anirudh Prasad & another. .... RESPONDENTSS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 12.06.2006, in R.A.No.60 of 2003 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said appeal filed by the petitioners herein, was dismissed confirming the order of eviction, dated 27.12.2002, passed by the learned I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad in R.C.No.238 of 2001. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. Petitioners are the tenants of the respondents in respect of the petition schedule premises bearing No.22-5-61, situate at Charkaman road, Hyderabad. The rent agreed was Rs.400/- per month and the rental deed, dated 01.10.1998, was also executed. Accordingly, the rent was payable by 10th of every succeeding month. According to the respondents-landlords, petitioners- tenants committed default in payment of rents from July, 1995 till February, 1997 and failed to pay the arrears of rent of Rs.7200/- for 30 months @ Rs.360/- per month, which was prevailing rent at that time. After issuing a notice, dated 24.02.1997, the tenants paid Rs.7920/- from April, 1995 to January, 1997 i.e. for twenty two months. Subsequently also, petitioners-tenants continued to be irregular in payment of rents and never paid the rent before the stipulated date and again they committed default in payment of rents from November, 1998 till May, 2001 for a period of thirty one months, amounting to Rs.12,400/-. Respondents-landlords also alleged that the petitioners-tenants have unauthorizedly sublet a portion of the schedule mulgi on a monthly rent of Rs.900/-. 4. Petitioners-tenants filed a counter denying that they committed any wilful default in payment of rents. According to them, though the rent was payable before 10th of every succeeding month as per the agreement, the original landlady, who is the mother of the respondents, was receiving the rents in lumpsum. They further alleged that in November, 1998 when the respondents approached the landlady for payment of rents, she avoided receiving the same and demanded abnormal enhancement. Therefore, the rents from November, 1998 got accumulated and the respondents sent Money Order for Rs.10,800/- on 09-04-2001 for the period from November, 1998 to February, 2001. Petitioners-tenants also denied that they have sublet a portion of the schedule mulgi. 5. During the enquiry before the learned Rent Controller, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.24 were marked. On behalf of the respondents- landlords, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R1 to R17 were marked. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Rent Controller held that the tenants have committed wilful default in payment of rents for the period from November, 1998 to May, 2001. The learned Rent Controller however negatived the plea of the landlords that the tenants have sublet a portion of the premises to another. In view of the wilful default committed by the tenants in payment of rents, the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction of the petitioners granting two months’ time to vacate. Aggrieved by the same, tenants filed R.A.No.60 of 2003. The learned Additional Chief Judge, by impugned order and on reappraisal of the entire evidence on record confirmed the finding of the learned Rent Controller and held that the landlords have established the ground of wilful default. 7. A perusal of the entire record and the impugned orders would go to show that it was a clear case of default on the part of the tenants in payment of the rents for different periods i.e., from July, 1993 to February, 1997 and also from November, 1998 to May, 2001. The plea of the tenants that the landlady used to receive the rents in lumpsum at irregular intervals as suited her convenience remained totally unsubstantiated. Admittedly, the rent was payable every month and before 10th of every succeeding month. It is again admitted that the rents for the months during the above two periods remained unpaid for no reason. It is only after a notice was issued by the landlady that the arrears of the first spell of default were paid and the arrears for the second spell of default was remitted by way of Money Order on 09.04.2001. The plea of the tenants that when they offered rent in November, 1998 the land lady demanded enhancement and refused to receive the rent and therefore the rents got accumulated, also remained unsubstantiated. Admittedly, the tenants have not taken any steps to deposit the rents into the Court consequent upon the alleged refusal of the landlady to receive the rents. The conduct of the tenants does not justify their plea that because of the refusal of the landlady to receive the rents they remained unpaid. The Courts below, on due and proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, have concurrently held that the tenants have committed wilful default in payment of the rents. The concurrent finding, which is based on proper appreciation of the evidence, does not therefore call for interference by this Court. There are absolutely no merits in the Civil Revision Petition. The order of eviction passed by the Courts below is therefore confirmed. Petitioners-tenants are granted three months’ time to vacate the premises and hand over the possession to the landlords. Petitioners-tenants are therefore directed to vacate the premises and hand over the vacant possession to the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 03rd March,2011. Tsy