Judgment:
ORDER
V. Bhaskara Rao, J.
1. This Revision Petition is filed against the judgment in R.C.A. No. 40/93 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam, confirming the order of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal District Munsif, Visakhapatnam in R.C.C. No. 135/88 dated 6-10-1988 holding that the revision petitioner-tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent and that the respondent-landlord requires the premises for a bonafide purpose i.e. self-occupation. The parties will be referred to as tenant and landlord.
2. The landlord filed the eviction petition with the following averments. Originally, father of the tenant had taken the premises on lease from the father of the landlord. After the death of his father, the landlord became the absolute owner and the tenancy continued. The rent for the premises is Rs. 300/- per month payable before the first of every month. The tenant was irregular in payment of rents, so much so that he used to pay rents once in six months or eight months in spite of repeated protests and the landlord used to pass receipts. He has defaulted in payment of rent for October and November, 1988 and hence he has committed wilful default in payment of rents. Further, he sub-let the premises to one Ayyankala Mahalakshmi who is doing cloth business in wholesale and the tenant is collecting the amount from the subtenant. As the landlord's son is studying at Visakhapatnam, he wants to keep him in his sister's house in Visakhapatnam and that the premises is required for his sister and son. It is lastly stated that the tenant committed acts of waste. The tenant contested the above eviction petition by denying all the material averments. The landlord's title is neither admitted nor denied. The averment that the premises was taken on lease by father of the tenant from the father of the landlord and that the tenancy is continued even after them is not disputed. The allegation that the tenant was very irregular in payment of rents and used to pay once in eight months or six months in spite of repeated protests from the landlord is denied. On the contrary, it is averred that there was an oral agreement between the father of the landlord and father of the tenant and the same is continuing between the parties and accordingly, the tenant has to pay the rent to landlord whenever he visits the house of the tenant at Visakhapatnam from Anakapalli. The rent payable being Rs. 300/- per month is also not disputed. It is however added that it was originally Rs. 25/- per month and the same is enhanced from stage to stage. It is denied that a portion of the premises was sub-let. The other ground of personal requirement, namely the petitioner's sister is residing in a rented house at Visakhapatnam and that the son of the landlord and his sister require the house for their own occupation is also denied. Likewise, the last ground that he has committed acts of waste is also denied.
3. In view of the above pleadings, the learned Munsif formulated the following points for consideration:
(1) Whether the petitioner is entitled for an eviction order as prayed for on the grounds of (a) wilful default in payment of rent, (b) sub-lease, (c) bona fide requirement and (d) acts of waste;
(2) To what order the petitioner is entitled to.
During the enquiry, the landlord examined himself as P.W.I and got Exs. A-1 to A-3 marked. Ex.A-1 dated 29-11-1988 is Office copy of notice issued by the petitioner and Ex.A-2 dated 21-11-1988 is notice of respondent to petitioner seeking to intimate the name of the bank in which he has to deposit rents. Ex.A-3 is a Certified Copy of the ledger extract showing the deposits of rents by the tenant. On the other hand, the tenant examined himself as R.W.1 and one A. Mahalakshminaidu, the alleged sub-tenant, as R.W.2. He got Exs.B-1 to B-21 marked on his behalf. Ex.C-1 dated 22-8-1990 is a memo filed by the tenant's Counsel showing deposits of rents through challans from September 1989 to June 1990. The above oral and documentary evidence has been thoroughly scrutinised by the learned Munsif and it has been held that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent both before the institution of the petition and subsequent to the petition and the landlord who has no other house at Visakhapatnam and whose son wants to stay in the premises along with his aunt is able to establish his bona fide requirement. Thus, the eviction petition has been allowed on both the grounds.
4. The tenant challenged the above findings and the eviction order before the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam, in R.C.A. No. 40 of 1993. The findings on both the grounds have been affirmed in appeal and the tenant's appeal has been dismissed. Thus, there are concurrent findings of two Courts below both on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and bona fide requirement.
5. Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contended that abundant evidence has been placed on record to show that there was a practice of the landlord receiving rents at long intervals and that itself is proof positive that there was an agreement to that effect. Moreover, the landlord is a resident of Anakapalli while the premises is at Visakhapatnam and hence, whenever it was convenient for the landlord, he was going to the tenant and collecting the rents. He further contended that the rent for October and November, 1988 was sent by Money Order and the same was refused. He, therefore, contended that there is no wilful default in payment of rent. He added that the finding regarding default in payment of rent subsequent to the institution of the petition cannot be made a ground for eviction Under Section 10(2) of Rent Control Act. Adverting to the second ground of bona fide requirement Sri Rama Gopal pointed out that sister of the landlord was having her own house at Visakhapatnam and hence his son who wanted to stay in the house of that sister cannot claim the same for his occupation. He, therefore, urged that the revision petition may be allowed and the eviction order may be set aside.
6. On the other hand, Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the landlord contended that the scope of revision petition Under Section 22 of the Rent Control Act is limited especially in a matter where both the Courts below recorded concurrent findings. He relied on K.A. Anthappai v. C. Ahammed: : [1992]3SCR70 As regards the wilful default, he supported the findings of both the Courts below and argued that default committed before and after filing of the petition can be made a ground for eviction. He relied on V.V. Krishna Vara Prasad v. S. Surya Rao: : 1997(1)ALT84 As regards bona fide requirement Sri T. Veerabhadrayya pointed out that there is uncontroverted material that his son was studying in B. Pharmacy and that he intends to start the business in the premises after completing the education. He cited Gullabbai v. Nalin Narsi Vohra : [1991]2SCR941 in support of the above proposition. Thus he urged that the revision petition may be dismissed.
7.1 carefully considered the contentions of both sides. It is not necessary for me to repeat the findings recorded by both the Courts below. First and foremost, it is for consideration whether this Court sitting in revision Under Section 22 of the Rent Control Act can go into questions of fact by re appreciating the evidence. In K.A. Anthappai's case (1 supra), the Supreme Court considered the scope of revisional jurisdiction of High Court and held,
'In exercise of its revisional jurisdiction Under Section 20 of the Act, the High Court can call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act by such authority for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of such order or proceedings and may pass such order in reference there to as it thinks fit.' It is no doubt true that the scope of the revisional jurisdiction conferred Under Section 20 is wider than that conferred Under Section 15, C.P.C. But at the same time, a revision Under Section 20 cannot be equated with an appeal. Moreover, the revisional power conferred Under Section 20 also embraces an order passed by the Appellate Authority. While considering the provisions conferring revisional power couched in a language similar to that contained in Section 20 of the Act, this Court has laid down that the power conferred on the High Court is essentially a power of superintendence and despite the wide language employed, the High Court should not interfere with the findings of fact of the subordinate authority merely because it does not agree with the said findings.'
8. Its earlier decisions in M/s. Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works v. Rangaswamy Chettiah: : AIR1980SC1253 and Rajbir v. S. Chokesiri & Co.: : AIR1988SC1845 have been relied upon for laying down the above ratio. I have also perused these two earlier judgments and I find that in the latter case, the Supreme Court observed that the revisional Court must be reluctant to embark upon an independent reassessment of the evidence and to supplant a conclusion of its own. On an earnest consideration of the reasoning given by both the Courts below in reaching the said conclusions, I am of the view that both the findings are sustainable and this Court cannot take a different view. It is no doubt true that the scope of a revision Under Section 22 of Rent Control Act is wider than the revision Under Section 115 C.P.C. and this aspect also has been considered by the Supreme Court in K.A. Anthappi's case (1, supra) but it has been held that it cannot be equated with an appeal.
9. Nevertheless, I have applied my anxious consideration to all the contentions raised by Sri G. Rama Gopal, to see whether both the Courts below have applied the correct law to the evidence on record. As regards the subsequent default, a learned Single Judge of this Court considered a catena of decisions on this question and held in V.V. Krishna Vara Prasad's case (2, supra) that it can be made a ground for eviction. That apart the requirement of the son of the landlord both during the period of education and thereafter appears to be genuine and hence there is no illegality or irregularity in the judgments of both the Courts below and hence there is no ground for this Court to interfere with them.
10. For the above reasons, the revision petition is dismissed and the order of eviction is confirmed. The tenant is granted two months time to vacate the premises, failing which the landlord will enforce the eviction order. No costs.