P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THE unsuccessful landlord in both the Courts below is the revision petitioner. The landlord filed R. C. No. 638 of 1994 on the file of the IV Additional rent Controller, Hyderabad seeking the relief of eviction alleging that the tenant had committed wilful default and also on the ground of bona fide requirement for the purpose of carrying on his cloth business. ( 2 ) THE jural relationship of landlord and tenant and also the quantum of rent originally at Rs. 170/- per month and enhanced from time to time and at the time of filing eviction petition Rs. 225. 50 ps are not in dispute. The respondent in the C. R. P. , the tenant, filed R. C. No. 11 of 1992 on the file of the III Additional Rent Controller, hyderabad for deposit of rents and the landlord had received arrears of rents amounting to Rs. 4059/- under protest without prejudice to his rights. The evidence of pw1 and RW1 was recorded by the Rent controller and Exs. A1 to A17 and Exs. Bl to B19 were marked and on appreciation of the evidence, the learned Rent Controller had dismissed the RC 638 of 1994 by order dated 17. 12. 1996 and aggrieved by the same, the landlord preferred R. A. No. 7 of 1997 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes court, Hyderabad which was also dismissed by order dated 5. 6. 2000 and the landlord aggrieved by the same had preferred the present C. R. P. ( 3 ) SRI A. Bitchaiah, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner-landlord had taken me to the relevant portions of the impugned order and also the order of the learned Rent Controller and had contended that both the Courts have totally erred in arriving at a conclusion that the tenant had not committed wilful default in the light of the fact that an amount of Rs. 14,000/- of the tenant is lying with the landlord and even otherwise, it is a different transaction and it will not enure to the benefit of the tenant at any rate. 14,000/- of the tenant is lying with the landlord and even otherwise, it is a different transaction and it will not enure to the benefit of the tenant at any rate. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also had pointed out that the appellate authority had totally erred while deciding the ground of bonafide requirement stating that the landlord is not financially sound for the purpose of carrying of his business and this finding is an irrelevant and unsustainable finding. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also contended that it is the will of the landlord to decide about the suitability or otherwise of the premises and when the landlord intends to commence his own cloth business in the mulgi, the Courts below had totally erred in negativing the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on (1986) 5 SCC 353, 2000 AIR SCW 66, air 1963 SC 698 and also 1989 (4) ALT 642. Learned Counsel for the petitioner had also contended that though both the Courts below have held against the landlord, the revision Court can definitely re-appreciate the evidence to the limited extent of seeing whether the findings are recorded in accordance with law. ( 4 ) SRI Ravi Kiran representing Mr. Sundariah had submitted that though power under Section 22 of A. P. Buildings (Lease, rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short the Act ) can be said to be wider when compared to the powers of the revisional Court under Section 115 CPC these powers cannot be equated with the appellate powers and since on appreciation of evidence both the Courts have arrived at a conclusion that the landlord is not entitled to the relief of eviction, such concurrent findings of fact based on evidence cannot be interfered with while exercising the revisional power under Section 22 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that clear findings have been recorded relating to the advance amounts of Rs. 14,000/- under separate agreement dated 14. 11. 1982 which is against law and unlawful and contrary to Section 7 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner also had contended that in view of the good relationship, the tenant and his wife advanced loan of rs. 14,000/- under separate agreement dated 14. 11. 1982 which is against law and unlawful and contrary to Section 7 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner also had contended that in view of the good relationship, the tenant and his wife advanced loan of rs. 45,000/- also to the landlord in the year 1999 and though the landlord promised to repay the same within a short period, the promise was not kept and in view of this problem there was refusal to pass receipts relating to the payments of the rents and subsequently the rent was enhanced by him voluntarily to avoid unnecessary litigation and even though the landlord refused to receive the same with a view to evict him by hook or crook and hence there are no bona fides on the part of the landlord. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also had drawn my attention to paras 12 to 19 of the impugned order and had contended that due reasons had been recorded by the appellate authority as to why the appellate authority was inclined to confirm the findings of the court of the first instance. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also had placed reliance on air 1989 SC 1510 equivalent to (1989) 2 scc 686 , 1995 (3) ALD 795 and also 1994 (2) ALT 62. ( 5 ) HEARD both the Counsel at length. ( 6 ) IT is pertinent to note that PW1 himself admitted in cross-examination relating to the amount of Rs. 14,000/- lying with him. This is a crucial aspect, which had been considered by both the Courts below to arrive at a conclusion that the tenant cannot be evicted on the ground of wilful default. Learned Rent Controller at paras 12 to 15 had discussed the aspect of wilful default in detail. After appreciating the evidence of PW1 and Ex. A1 to A17 and also the evidence of RW1 and Ex. B1 to b19, the Rent Controller came to conclusion that the ground of wilful default has to be negatived and the appellate authority also while answering the point at paras 12 to 18 had answered this point against the landlord. After appreciating the evidence of PW1 and Ex. A1 to A17 and also the evidence of RW1 and Ex. B1 to b19, the Rent Controller came to conclusion that the ground of wilful default has to be negatived and the appellate authority also while answering the point at paras 12 to 18 had answered this point against the landlord. The petitioner got himself examined as PW1 and had stated that the tenancy was in writing and that he used to issue receipts whenever he received the rents and respondent had paid the rents upto September, 1989 and thereafter withhold the rents from October, 1991 for a period of 23 months and in cross-examination he had stated that the respondent is a tenant from 4. 11. 1981 and an advance amount of Rs. 14,000/- was paid to him as deposit and to that effect they had entered into an agreement and the deposit is still lying with him and the said amount is refundable at the time of vacating the premises and he is ready to pay the advance amount if the respondent vacates the premises and he had also admitted that he did not send any reply to the notice received by him from the tenant and he had denied the suggestion that he had received the rents from October, 1989 to December, 1991 but did not pass any receipts. PW1 also had admitted about the two suits O. S. No. 1720 of 1992 and O. S. No. 614 of 1992 filed against him and the said suits were decreed. The tenant had examined himself as RW1 and had spoken about the advance amount of rs. 14,000/- lying with the landlord in pursuance of the agreement dated 4. 11. 1992 marked as Ex. Bl. RW1 also deposed that he had issued a registered notice requesting the landlord to name the bank to enable him! to deposit in his account but the landlord, had not given any reply in this regard. Section 7 of the Act deals with the landlord not to claim or receive anything in excess of fair rent or agreed rent. Section 7 of the Act reads as follows:1. to deposit in his account but the landlord, had not given any reply in this regard. Section 7 of the Act deals with the landlord not to claim or receive anything in excess of fair rent or agreed rent. Section 7 of the Act reads as follows:1. Landlord not to claim or receive anything in excess of fair rent or agreed rent : where the Controller has fixed the fair rent of a building (a) the landlord shall not claim, receive or stipulate for the payment of (i) any premium or other like sum in addition to such fair rent, or (ii) save as provided in section 5 or Section 6, anything in excess of such fair rent: provided that the landlord may receive, or stipulate for the payment of an amount not exceeding one month s rent by way of advance: (b) save as provided in clause (a), any premium or other like sum or any rent paid in addition to, or in excess of such fair rent, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, in consideration of the grant, continuance or renewal of tenancy of the building after such commencement, shall be refunded by the landlord to the person by whom it was paid or at the option of such person, shall be otherwise adjusted by the land landlord:provided that where before the determination of the fair rent, rent has been paid in excess thereof, the refund or adjustment shall be limited to the amount paid in excess for a period of six months prior to the date of application by the tenant or the landlord under sub-section (1) of Section 4 for fixing the fair rent. (2) Where the fair rent of a building has not been so fixed (a) the landlord shall not, after the commencement of this Act, claim, receive or stipulate for the payment of any premium or other like sum in addition to the agreed rent: provided that the landlord may receive, or stipulate for the payment of, an amount not exceeding one month s rent by way of advance: (b) save as provided in clause (a), any sum paid in excess of the agreed rent whether before or after the commencement of this Act, in consideration of the grant, continuance or renewal of the tenancy of the building after such commencement, shall be refunded by the landlord to the person by whom it was paid or, at the option of such person, shall be otherwise adjusted by the landlord. (3) Any stipulation in contravention of such sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be null and void. ( 7 ) IN Modern Hotel Gudur v. K. Radhakrishnaiah, AIR 1989 SC 1510 , it was held that where the landlord was holding advance amount of tenant s account, such a tenant cannot be termed as defaulter. Same view was expressed in adapa Santharam and another v. Sait nathmal Manik Chand, 1995 (3) ALD 795 and in Ganeshlal v. Najamunnisa Begum, 1994 (2) ALT 62. In the light of the above legal position, it cannot be said that the findings recorded by both the Courts below on the question of wilful default can be said to be unsustainable. ( 8 ) THE second aspect involved in the matter is under the count of bona fide requirements of the landlord for carrying on his cloth business. It appears, initially, when pw1 was examined he had not filed any document relating to purchase made by him, but however, he was recalled on 19. 9. 1996 2002 (2) FR-F-46 and Ex. A1 to A16 receipts showing purchase of cloth for business were filed. The appellate authority while dealing with this aspect at para 19 had observed as follows:"with regard to the financial capacity to carry on his business, the affidavits filed by him seeking permission of the Court to repay the decree amounts in the suit which were decreed in favour of the respondent he mentioned that except the rents from the mulgies amounting to Rs. 200/- he does not have any other income. 200/- he does not have any other income. The affirmations made in the affidavits go against his plea that he is financially sound to carry on his business. His evidence also shows that some other mulgies were vacant during 1992 to 1994 and he has not chosen to occupancy of the mulgies to start his cloth business. "while making these submissions relating to the second ground of bona fide requirement, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner had strenuously contended that this finding is totally unsustainable one and no doubt the learned Counsel for the petitioner had fairly submitted that except the evidence of PW1 there is no evidence available on record. Learned Counsel also had stated that though the landlord cannot succeed on the first ground of wilful default, he is bound to succeed on the ground of bona fide requirement. Learned Counsel placed strong reliance on Bhupendra N. Patel v. Harshavardhan Chokkani, 1999 (4) ALT 642 and had submitted that the revisional court has to satisfy itself to the legality, propriety of the order of the Subordinate court and jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act enables the revisional Court to examine correctness of the finding of the fact also in appropriate cases where the finding was rendered without there being any evidence or considering the evidence which was not relevant. It is settled position of law that the landlord is the best Judge of his requirement for residential or business purposes and he has got complete freedom in the matter. In Prativa Devi v. T. V. Krishnan, (1996) 5 SCC 353 , and in raghavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem machinery and Co. , 2000 AIR SCW 66, it was held by the Apex Court that regarding the suitability of the premises of the landlord s requirement, the landlord is the best Judge and has complete freedom in the matter. In the light of the above legal position, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner-landlord had submitted that the finding of the Courts below on the aspect of bona fide requirement is definitely unsustainable. In the light of the above legal position, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner-landlord had submitted that the finding of the Courts below on the aspect of bona fide requirement is definitely unsustainable. ( 9 ) AFTER perusing the evidence of pw1 and RW1 as far as the aspect of bona fide requirement is concerned, in view of the findings of the Courts below, it is a matter to be remitted back to the appellate authority for the purpose of giving an opportunity to both the parties to let in further evidence, if any, on the ground of bona fide requirement only and to decide the matter afresh after recording such evidence which may be adduced by both the parties in this regard. ( 10 ) HENCE, for the reasons recorded above, the civil revision petition is partly allowed and the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority for the purpose of giving opportunity to both the parties to let in evidence, if any, relating to the ground of bona fide requirement only and then decide the matter in accordance with law. The CRP is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.