P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THE civil revision petition is filed by the unsuccessful landlords as against an order of the appellate authority made in RCA No. 7/95 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada reversing the order made in RCC No. 59/85 on the file of the Rent Controller-Principal District Munsif, Kakinada, RCC No. 59/85 was filed seeking the relief of eviction against the respondents relating to the petition schedule premises. The deceased 1st petitioner one Grandhi Veera Venkata Lakshmi was the daughter of Suryanarayana and Rajaratnam and after the death of the 1st petitioner the other petitioners were added as legal representatives even in RCC No. 59/85. The said Suryanarayana died on 23-6-1984 estate by executing the will dated 9-6-1984 in a sound disposing state of mind and as per the will the petitioners are entitled to Item A of the schedule property Door No. 43-7-25 and it is also the case of the petitioners that the 1st respondent in the RCC i. e. , 2nd respondent in the present CRP, during the life time of Suryanarayana took the schedule building on lease on a monthly rent of Rs. 600/- and he had sublet the property to the 2nd respondent in the RCC i. e. , the 1st respondent in the revision and late Suryanarayana never recognised the sublease and further it was averred that the said Babu Rao had committed wilful default in payment of rents from July, 1984 to August, 1985 and they have no other residential house at Kakinada and it became inevitable for them to be residing in a house on rent and thus they require the premises bona fide. The 1st respondent in the R. C. C. No. 59/85 had filed a counter stating as follows : "it is true that M Suryanarayana garu executed a will dated 9-6-1984. The relationship of the petitioners are true. It is false to state that he has represented M Suryanarayana garu. It is true that a portion in the demised building fell into the share of the petitioners as per the will. It is false to state that he took the demised premises on lease from late Suryanarayana garu. It is also false he subletting the demised premises to the 2nd respondsnt without consent of late Suryanarayana garu. It is true that a portion in the demised building fell into the share of the petitioners as per the will. It is false to state that he took the demised premises on lease from late Suryanarayana garu. It is also false he subletting the demised premises to the 2nd respondsnt without consent of late Suryanarayana garu. It is also false that he has committed wilful default in payment of rents as shown in the petition. Late Suryanarayana Rao garu himself leased out the demised premises to the 2nd respondent and he has been collecting rents on behalf of 2002 Supp. (1) FRF-48 suryanarayana garu during his lifetime. He was not a tenant at any point of time. He is receiving rents after the death of Suryanarayana garu and regularly paying half of the share to the petitioners. Out of good faith and also because of his relationship he never received any receipt from the petitioners. After the lifetime of Suryanarayana he has collected rents from time to time from petitioners. He also remitted half share of the rent of the petitioners until 1984. Only in the month of September, 1984 the disputes arose, when the son of the 1 st petitioner by name Veera Venkata Satyanarayana collected rents from him. As per the will he and the 1st petitioner are equal sharers of the entire building. When the petitioners raised dispute he stopped collecting rents on behalf of the petitioners share from the 2nd respondent and he has been receiving only his half share and advised the 2nd respondent to send the rent directly to the petitioner. It is true that the petitioners have no other residential house of their own and they are residing in rented house. The schedule property is not a residential house and not in a residential locality. It is in a busy locality and has been used to let out for non-residential purpose for the last 40 years. There are no amenities for residential purpose like well or tap etc. The 2nd respondent in the said RCC also filed a counter stating as follows:- "they did not know whether the 1st petitioner is the daughter of late Suryanarayana. They also does not know about execution of will dated 9-6-1984 by Suryanarayana garu and the petitioners are entitled to half share in the building bearing D. No. 53-7-25. The 2nd respondent in the said RCC also filed a counter stating as follows:- "they did not know whether the 1st petitioner is the daughter of late Suryanarayana. They also does not know about execution of will dated 9-6-1984 by Suryanarayana garu and the petitioners are entitled to half share in the building bearing D. No. 53-7-25. Late Suryanarayana garu himself let out the building on a monthly rent of Rs. 550/- at the beginning and also took advance of Rs. 1,100/- on 4-6-1980. Late Suryanarayana garu specifically authorised his wife Rajaratnam to collect the rents on his behalf. The advance amount is for 2 months and the same was agreed to be adjusted whenever they fell in arrears. The rent was enhanced to Rs. 600/- from 1-1-1981. Late Suryanaryana directed to pay rents to the 1st respondent who is his foster-son. Accordingly they have been paying rents to R. I from September, 1981. Late Suryanarayana died on 23-6-1984. The 1st respondent informed them that late Suryanarayana executed a will bequeathing the building to his children and the children of 1st petitioner equally and requested them to pay half of the rents to the children of the 1st petitioner. Accordingly they approached the petitioners to furnish a Photostat copy so as to enable them to prepare a receipt to pay the house rent. The petitioners refused to comply, and filed this petition. As per the information given by the 1 st respondent the 1st petitioner is not the owner and her children alone are entitled to share in the schedule property. It is false to state that they are in arrears of rent from June, 1984 to August, 1985. It is false to state that the petitioners are in bona fide requirement of the demised premises for their personal occupation. They have deposited the monthly rents of October to December at the rate of Rs. 300/- towards the half share of the petitioners in Court. The lease is oral one and the rent is payable on or before 15th of every succeeding month. The schedule premises is situated in commercial locality and the same is not useful for residential purpose. They are represented to pay half of the rents of the petitioners if they establish their title. " the 2nd petitioner was examined as PW1 and PW2 was examined on their behalf and Exs. The schedule premises is situated in commercial locality and the same is not useful for residential purpose. They are represented to pay half of the rents of the petitioners if they establish their title. " the 2nd petitioner was examined as PW1 and PW2 was examined on their behalf and Exs. A1 to A5 were marked and the 1st respondent in the RCC was examined as RW1 and the Secretary of the 2nd respondent in the RCC was examined as RW2 and Exs. Bl to B8 were marked. As already referred supra, the 1st respondent in the CRP is the 2nd respondent in the RCC and the 2nd respondent in the CRP is the 1st respondent in the RCC. ( 2 ) IN the present revision, the petitioners will be referred to for the purpose of convenience as "landlords" and the 1st respondent as "tenant" and the 2nd respondent as "2nd respondent". ( 3 ) THE learned Rent Controller after framing several points for consideration had arrived at a conclusion that Suryanarayana had executed a will and half share had been given to the landlords and the remaining half to the 2nd respondent. The learned Rent Controller after discussing the evidence also had arrived at the conclusion that the theory of sub-lease had not been substantiated and the ground of wilful default also was negatived but however while answering Points 5 and 6 on the ground of bona fide requirement and also on the ground of acts of waste it was held that the landlords are entitled for the relief of eviction and accordingly had allowed the RCC. The tenant aggrieved by the same filed RCA No. 7/95 on the file of the Appellate Authority-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada impleading the landlords and also the 2nd respondent as 6th respondent in the appeal and the learned appellate authority had framed the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the finding of the learned Rent Controller relating to bona fide requirement of demised premises for the petitioners in RCC is sustainable ? 2. Whether finding of learned Rent Controller that 2nd respondent in RCC who is appellant herein has committed acts of waste and caused damage to the roof of the demised premises is sustainable? 3. Whether the finding of the learned Rent Controller relating to bona fide requirement of demised premises for the petitioners in RCC is sustainable ? 2. Whether finding of learned Rent Controller that 2nd respondent in RCC who is appellant herein has committed acts of waste and caused damage to the roof of the demised premises is sustainable? 3. Whether the finding of the learned Rent Controller relating to subsequent event of second respondent in R. C. C. who is appellant herein securing alternate accommodation is sustainable ? the appellate authority at paragraphs 17 to 20 had discussed about Point No. 1 and Point No. 2 at paragraphs 21 to 22 and Point No. 3 at paragraphs 23 to 28 and had ultimately allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the learned Rent Controller and the landlords aggrieved by the same had filed the present revision and at present there appears to be no conflict of interest between the landlords and 2nd respondent and the main controversy appears to be between the tenant and the landlords only. Sri Ravi Kumar, representing Sri V. L. N. G. K. Murthy, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners had made elaborate submissions and had raised several contentions pointing out the portions of the order of the appellate authority and had also pointed out how the appellate authority had totally gone wrong in reversing the well considered findings of the Rent Controller on the aspects of bona fide requirement and acts of waste. The learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to CMP No. 10551/99, an application filed for reception of additional evidence i. e. , letter dated 18-9-1994, a photocopy of the resolution of the tenant and a registration extract of the sale deed to show that the contentions of the tenant are not at all bona fide. The learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to several portions of the order and pointed out that the appellate authority had totally erred in not appreciating the subsequent events properly. The learned Counsel had placed strong reliance on Pushpa Trading Company v. Boorgu Jagadeshwaraiah and Sons, 1998 (5) ALD 594, and Boorgu Jagadeshwaraiah and Sons v. Pushpa Trading Co. , (1998) 5 SCC 572 . The learned Counsel had placed strong reliance on Pushpa Trading Company v. Boorgu Jagadeshwaraiah and Sons, 1998 (5) ALD 594, and Boorgu Jagadeshwaraiah and Sons v. Pushpa Trading Co. , (1998) 5 SCC 572 . ( 4 ) SRI C. V. Banuji Ramaras, representing the 2nd respondent had fairly submitted that there is no conflict of interest between 2nd respondent and the landlords at present and had contended that the tenant is liable to be evicted. ( 5 ) IT is pertinent to note that there is no residential building available to the petitioners and hence thev are reauestine the premises for their own personal occupation. The landlords-petitioners have been residing in a rented house. It is also pertinent to note that the tenant had acquired new premises during the pendency of the trial of the RCC and had shifted the office to new premises and had let out some portion of the premises too and on the basis of Exs. B6 and B7 the learned Rent Controller after detailed discussion had arrived at the conclusion that the requirement of the landlords is bona fide. But the appellate authority had reversed those findings without properly appreciating the material available on record. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the tenant had removed some rafters in the roof of the demised premises and had reconstructed the same and had committed acts of waste and caused damage in the demised premises. It is pertinent to note that the tenant had not obtained any permission from the Tribunal to effect repairs since the case of the tenant is that it had required repairs because of the damage caused due to the cyclones. The tenant also had not produced any documentary evidence to show that he had requested the landlords to effect the alleged repairs and the learned Rent Controller after detailed discussion had arrived at a conclusion that the tenant had committed acts of waste by removing the rafters and laying pulmyrah rafters on the roof of the demised premises and this aspect of the case is well supported by even the report of the Commissioner, Ex. C1 and also Ex. C2 (spot notes ). The reasoning given by the Rent Controller while answering Point No. 6 relating to acts of waste is cogent and convincing. C1 and also Ex. C2 (spot notes ). The reasoning given by the Rent Controller while answering Point No. 6 relating to acts of waste is cogent and convincing. But the appellate authority without properly appreciating all the facts and circumstances had reversed the said finding on irrelevant considerations. It is also pertinent to note that the documents filed in CMP No. 10551/99 only can be relied upon prima facie to show that the conduct of the tenant is not bona fide and nothing more than that. Hence, on this ground the matter need not be sent back. Since I am satisfied that in the light of the clear evidence available on record, the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the Advocate Commissioner and also RW1 and Exs. Al to A5 and Exs. Cl and C2, both the grounds of bona fide requirement and acts of waste of the landlords are clearly established and hence the order of the Rent Controller in this regard is liable to be restored as far as these grounds are concerned and the order of the appellate authority dated 16-11-1998 is liable to be set aside. ( 6 ) FOR the foregoing reasons recorded, the impugned order of the appellate authority made in RCA No. 7/95 dated 16-11-1998 is hereby set aside and the CRP is allowed granting three months time to the tenant to vacate the premises.