APHC010493442024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2240/2025 Between: 1. GUDLA RAMESH,, S/O LATE NARASIMHASWAMAY, HINDU,AGE 48 YEARS. BUSINESS. RESIDING AT DOOR NO.23-108. MARUTHI NAGAR,2ND LANE. NARASANNAPETA TOWN AND MANDAL. SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. GUDIA MOHANRAO DIED, A 2. GUDLA RATNA KUMARI, W/O LATE MOHANARAO, AGE 65 YEARS, HOUSEMAKER, R/O NETHAJI STREET, NARASANNAPETA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. GUDIA VENKATA SUBRAMANYAM, S/O LATE MOHANA RAO, AGE 45 YEARS. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, TA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. GUDIA SURYANARAYANA, S/O LATE MOHANARAO, AGE 45 YEARS. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, TA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased topleased to set aside the Order in RCMA No. 2 of 2013 in RCC 1/2009 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikakulam Dated 29.07.2024 and Decree and Order in RCC No 1 of 2009on the file of the Junior Civil Judge cum Rent Controller, Narasannapeta, Dated 29.9.2012 IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 290 days in representing the above CRP IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to Stay all further proceedings pursuant to the order dt. 29-07-2024 passed in RCMA No 2 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikakulam by confirming the Decree and order in R.C.C.No 01/2009 on the file of the Junior civil Judge Cum Rent Controller, Narasannapeta. Dated 29.9.2012 pending disposal of the CRP Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: ORDER The respondent in R.C.C.No.1 of 2009 on the file of Junior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Narasannapeta, filed the above revision under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short “the Act”). 2. The parties to this revision are referred to as „Landlord‟ and „Tenant‟, for the sake of convenience. 3. The landlord filed R.C.C.No.1 of 2009 under Section 10 (2)(i) and 10 (3)(1)(b) of the Act, seeking eviction of the tenant. In the affidavit, it was stated that the landlord leased the demised shop to the tenant on 21.05.1994 for a monthly rent of Rs. 650/- for a period of 11 months. The tenant agreed to pay monthly rent and to obtain receipts. He also agreed to pay electricity consumption charges. The tenant committed default in payment of the monthly rent. The landlord filed suits O.S.Nos.27 of 1999, 13 of 2002 and 73 of 2002 for recovery of arrears. The said suits were decreed on 05.11.2008. The landlord filed another suit, O.S.No.103 of 2008, for recovery of dues. The landlord requires the demised shop bona fide for his personal use. The landlord requested the tenant to vacate the demised shop by paying the arrears of rent. The tenant, having agreed to the same, postponed the same on one pretext or another. The tenant is not taking safety measures in the building and is causing damage to the shop. The landlord issued a legal notice on 20.06.2008 and thereafter filed R.C.C. 4. The tenant filed a counter and contended, inter alia, that there are no arrears and he has been taking safety measures to the demised shop and never violated the terms agreed. The landlord refused to pass receipts for the payment of rent. The tenant sent the monthly rent by way of money order without fail, and the landlord received the same. The landlord is having another shop in the same complex, which is vacant and eventually prayed to dismiss the R.C.C. 5. During the trial, the landlord examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. The tenant examined himself as R.W.1 and got marked Exs.R1 to R39. 6. The learned rent controller by order dated 29.09.2012 allowed the R.C.C., directing the tenant to vacate the premises within 2 months. The tenant filed an appeal R.C.M.A.No.2 of 2013 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikakulam. Pending the appeal, the landlord died, and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 2 to 4. The appellant tribunal, being the final fact authority, after considering both oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal by order dated 29.07.2024. Aggrieved by the said order, the above revision has been filed. 7. Initially, the revision was filed on 05.11.2024. The Registry returned the same with certain objections. Later, the objections were complied with and represented the revision with a delay of 290 days. The tenant filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 to condone the delay in representing the revision. By order dated 11.09.2025, the said petition is ordered. 8. Heard Sri S.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the tribunals below failed to consider the plea of the tenant that the landlord refused to receive the rents and hence, the tenant has been sending the same by way of money order and thus there is no default. He would also submit that the landlord has another shop in the same complex; however, he did not choose to conduct business in the said shop. He would also submit that the landlord failed to issue receipts from the beginning; however, the tribunals below failed to consider the same. 10. Before proceeding further, let this court, in the first instance, examine the scope of the revision filed under Sec 22 of the Act. A constitution bench of the Hon‟ble Apex Court considered the same in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Dilbahar Singh1. It was held thus: “43. We hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent Control Acts entitles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court/first appellate authority because on reappreciation of the evidence, its view is different from the court/authority below. The consideration or examination of the evidence by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under these Acts is confined to find out that finding of facts recorded by the court/authority below is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law. A finding of fact recorded by court/authority below, if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law. In that event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself as to the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it as indicated above. However, to satisfy itself to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order, the High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to reappreciate or reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal. Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine 1 (2014) 9 SCC 78 : 2014 SCC OnLine SC 641 whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity.” 11. In the case at hand, both the tribunals recorded the concurrent finding of fact concerning the default committed by the tenant and the landlord‟s bona fide requirement of the demised shop. As seen from the material available on record, three suits O.S.Nos.27 of 1999, 13 of 2002 and 73 of 2002 filed by the landlord for recovery of arrears of rent were decreed, and thereafter the landlord filed E.Ps and recovered the amount. 12. As seen from the order of the appellate tribunal, suit O.S.No.103 of 2008 filed by the landlord is pending. However, the order in R.C.C.No.1 of 2009 dated 29.09.2012 discloses that the suit O.S.No.103 of 2008 was disposed of on 28.01.2011 and the same is marked as Ex.R39. Thus, in view of the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the lower tribunal as confirmed by the appellate tribunal, after appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, this Court, in the absence of any contrary evidence, opines that there is neither illegality nor perversity in the orders passed by the lower Tribunals. 13. As rightly pointed out by the appellate tribunal, had the landlord failed to receive the monthly rents as contended by the tenant, the tenant could have invoked Section 8 of the Act and deposited the rents. However, for the reasons best known, the tenant did not avail the statutory remedy. 14. In respect of bona fide requirement, the landlord is the best person to choose the premises, and the tenant cannot dictate terms as to the suitability or otherwise of the premises. Page 7 of 7 15. In Kanahaiya Lal Arya Vs. Md.Ehshan & Ors2., the Hon‟ble Apex Court considered the concept of bona fide requirement of the landlord and his choosing particular premises and held thus: 10. The law with regard to eviction of a tenant from the suit premises on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord is well settled. The need has to be a real one rather than a mere desire to get the premises vacated. The landlord is the best judge to decide which of his property should be vacated for satisfying his particular need. The tenant has no role in dictating as to which premises the landlord should get vacated for his need alleged in the suit for eviction. 16. In the case at hand, both the tribunals recorded a finding that the demised shop is required by the landlord. The learned counsel for the petitioner failed to demonstrate any illegality or perversity. 17. Given the discussion supra, the appellate tribunal, being the final fact-finding authority, considered all these aspects and rightly dismissed the appeal by confirming the order passed by the learned rent controller. The impugned order does not suffer from perversity or illegality, and it brooks the interference of this Court. This Court does not find any merit in the above revision, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 18. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is Dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 432