HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4131 OF 2010 Between: J.Venkata Somaraju … Petitioner And K.Krishnamacharyulu and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4131 OF 2010 ORDER:- This revision by the tenant under Section 22 of the A.P.Lease Buildings and Rents Control Act, aggrieved by the order of eviction passed in R.C.C.No.59 of 2008 by the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, dated 16.09.2008, as confirmed by the impugned judgment in R.C.A.No.13 of 2008, dated 08.07.2010, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. There is no dispute that the 1st respondent/landlord is the owner of the house bearing door No.35-1-7 and the petitioner’s father who was the managing partner of M/s.Krishna Emporium obtained the northern portion of the premises on lease on a monthly rent of Rs.500/- on 14.02.2000 and later it was increased to Rs.732.05 ps. On the death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner became the managing partner. The landlord filed R.C.C.No.59 of 2002 seeking eviction of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner sub-let the portion to Kancherla Veerabhadra Rao, proprietor of M/s.Ramakrishna Timber Depot-2nd respondent, who started a timber depot in the schedule property and he committed willful default in payment of the rent. The petitioner, who contested the claim of the landlord, filed a counter. In order to prove the sub-lease and willful default by the tenant, the landlord examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A18 apart from Exs.X1 to X3. On behalf of the petitioner, two witnesses were examined as R.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked. The learned trial court after considering the oral and documentary evidence held that the landlord established that the tenant got removed the compound wall and made some construction, but he denied about receiving of Rs.1,00,000/- towards advance from the respondents as stated by the tenant. When the landlord amended the petition with regard to the sublease and other things, the tenant filed an additional counter in which he has not mentioned about payment of Rs.1,00,000/-. Exs.X1 to X3, which were marked through P.W.2, shows that Ramakrishna Timber Depot is not the partnership firm, but it is only a proprietory concern. From the evidence of P.W.2-Forest Range Officer, who is examined on behalf of the landlord, it is established that the petitioner sub let the premises to the 2nd respondent. Further, the tenant committed willful default in payment of the rents, as the plea that he paid Rs.1,00,000/- towards advance to the landlord has not been established and no such plea has been taken in the counter. After execution of Ex.A2-lease deed, except Rs.500/- no amount was paid by the tenant to the landlord. Therefore, the plea of the tenant that he paid Rs.1,00,000/- towards advance under Ex.B5 document has not been proved and without there being any pleading, no evidence can be let in, in proof of payment of Rs.1,00,000/- and his accounts also do not disclose about payment of Rs.1,00,000/-. Even if the tenant really paid Rs.1,00,000/- towards advance, there is no necessity for him to pay the rents under Exs.A13 and A14 letters. Therefore, the trial court rightly concluded that the tenant failed to establish about the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- to the landlord and ordered eviction of the petitioner from the schedule premises. On appeal being filed, the lower appellate court on re- appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence confirmed the said findings. Both the courts below concurrently held that the petitioner sub-let the premises; removed the compound wall and made constructions, which were not authorized under the lease deed, and committed default in payment of the rents. The concurrent findings of facts reached by the courts below on appreciation of the evidence do not suffer from any perversity, nor any evidence is adduced by the parties in reaching to the conclusion that the tenant has not committed any default in payment of the rents and the petitioner has not sub-let the premises to the 2nd respondent. In view of the same, this court does not find any ground to interfere with the findings of facts, recorded by the courts below. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner/tenant is granted four months time for handing over vacant possession of the schedule property, subject to his payment of rents on or before 10th of every succeeding month and giving an undertaking to the Rent Controller that he will handover vacant possession of the schedule property to the landlord on or before 31st January 2010. In default of payment of rents or giving such undertaking, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, it is always open for the landlord to execute the order of eviction. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 24th September 2010 lmv