P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THE unsuccessful landlord in both the Courts below had filed the present C. R. P. under Section 22 of the a. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act, 1960, in short referred to as "act" hereinafter. ( 2 ) AT the outset, it may be stated that the landlord filed C. M. P. No. 22116/2001 for reception of additional evidence at the revisional stage and also the tenant filed two applications in C. M. P. Nos. 20306/2001 and 21063/2001 for reception of additional evidence and as far as these applications are concerned, both the Counsel had stated that they have no objection for receiving this additional evidence at the revision stage. Hence, all the C. M. Ps. are allowed. ( 3 ) THE landlord filed R. C. No. 703/94 on the file of the I Additional Rent controller, Hyderabad, on the grounds of wilful default, sub-letting, securing alternative accommodation, bona fide requirement and change of user and the learned Rent controller, after recording the evidence of p. W. I to P. W. 3, R. W. 1 to R. W. 3, Exs. A. l to A. 11 Exs. R. 1 to R. 19 and also Ex. X. l had arrived at a conclusion that none of the grounds for eviction were established and had accordingly dismissed the eviction petition in R. C. No. 703/94 by an order dated 31. 3. 1997 and the landlord aggrieved by the same, had preferred R. A. No. 110/97 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City small Causes Court at Hyderabad, which was also dismissed by an order dated 12. 7. 2000 and aggrieved by the same, the landlord filed the present C. R. P. ( 4 ) SRI Keshav Hulsurkar, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioner- landlord, had strenuously contended that though the material available on record for other grounds may not be sufficient, there is clear evidence as far as the grounds of wilful default and sub-letting are concerned, and both the Courts below had totally erred in appreciating the questions of fact and questions of law involved in this matter. The learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to several documents filed by way of additional evidence at the revisional stage. The learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to several documents filed by way of additional evidence at the revisional stage. The learned Counsel had further contended that several factual aspects, which are within the exclusive knowledge of the tenant and had not been brought on record since the tenant himself was not examined himself at all and hence, the Courts below should have drawn an adverse inference and on this ground alone, the landlord bound to succeed. The learned Counsel had placed strong reliance on G. K. Carpenter v. N. N. Rawat, air 1970 MP 225 . The learned Counsel also had pointed out to the pleadings and also the findings recorded by the learned rent Controller and also by the appellate authority in this regard and had pointed out that the approach of both the Courts below can be definitely said to be totally erroneous in the light of the oral and documentary evidence available on record and also the additional evidence placed before the revisional Court. The learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to M. K. Mukunthan v. M. Pasupathi, 2001 (5) ALD 1 (SC) and also N. R. Narayan Swamy v. B. Francis Jagan, 2001 (5) ALD 44 (SC ). ( 5 ) SRI Shaik Mahamood All, the learned Counsel representing the respondent- tenant had vehemently contended about the scope and ambit of interference of a revisional Court under Section 22 of the Act and had pointed out that clear concurrent findings had been recorded by both the courts below on appreciation of facts and since, the concurrent findings had been recorded on factual aspects, such findings cannot be disturbed in a revision. The learned counsel had placed strong reliance on mudigonda Chandra Mouli Sastry v. Bhimanepalli Bikshalu, 1999 RCR 212 and also Ramesh v. A. Balreddy, 1990 (2) RCR 39 (SC ). The learned Counsel also had contended that the conduct of the landlord clearly goes to show that he is in the habit of filing the rent control petitions for the purpose of threatening the tenants and in fact, whenever the tenants agree for enhancement of rent, there will be settlement. The learned Counsel had drawn my attention to Exs. R. 15, R. 16, R. 17, R. 18 and also R. 19 in support of his contention. The learned Counsel had drawn my attention to Exs. R. 15, R. 16, R. 17, R. 18 and also R. 19 in support of his contention. The learned counsel further submitted that even on the grounds of sub-letting and wilful default, there is absolutely no material and ingredients of sub-letting had not been established at all. Even otherwise, the ground of wilful default cannot be said to have been established since in R. C. No. 703/94 filed under Section 8 (5) of the Act, the procedure, in fact, had been properly followed by the tenant and the tenant has been depositing rents. In any view of the matter, in view of the clear concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below and in view of the detailed discussion recorded by the appellate authority in paragraph Nos. 18 to 27 of the impugned order, there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the orders of the court below. ( 6 ) HEARD both the Counsel on record and also perused the material available on record. ( 7 ) AT the outset, it may be stated that between the same parties R. C. No. l 13/77 was filed by the landlord, which was dismissed on 31. 10. 1980. It is also brought on record that as against all other tenants, the eviction petitions had been filed and compromise had been entered into. Those aspects, in fact, had been discussed by the Courts below. May be that, all these aspects are brought to the notice of the Court for the purpose of appreciating the nature and conduct of the landlord. The respective pleadings of the parties are as follows: ( 8 ) IT is stated in the eviction petition that the petitioner is the owner and landlord of the demised mulgi bearing No. 3. 2. 249, situate at Moti Market, Hyderabad and the respondent is a tenant and the agreed monthly rent is Rs. 200/- and the same is payable on or before 5th of every English calender month. The respondent is irregular in payment of rent and not paying rent in time. The respondent has committed wilful default in payment of monthly rents for the months of August to November, 1994, which is to be paid in advance. He has orally demanded and also issued a legal notice to the respondent to vacate the demised premises as he has committed wilful default. The respondent has committed wilful default in payment of monthly rents for the months of August to November, 1994, which is to be paid in advance. He has orally demanded and also issued a legal notice to the respondent to vacate the demised premises as he has committed wilful default. The respondent obtained the mulgi for the purpose of business of laundry, but he has changed the nature of the business and doing ice business. Thus, the respondent has violated the terms and conditions of the contract. Due to ice business, the walls and flooring of the demised premises has been damaged and there is a likelihood of collapse at any time. Thus, the respondent has caused damage to the demised premises. The respondent has obtained the demised mulgi for carrying on Laundry work but he has been using the mulgi simultaneously for his residence also even prior to his becoming landlord of the demised premises. The respondent has secured an alternative accommodation and has shifted his residence to the premises bearing No. 13. 2. 268 situated upper Dhoolpet and carrying on his laundry business. Thus, the respondent has ceased to occupy the demised mulgi and in turn he has sublet the demised mulgi to others who has been carrying on ice business. He is intending to start hotel business in the demised premises. As such, he is in bona fide need of the demised premises to start his hotel business. He got experience in running hotel business and also got capital. He has no other premises in the twin cities except the demised premises. Inspite of his repeated requests the respondent has not vacated the demised premises. Hence the petition. ( 9 ) DENYING the allegations in the petition, the respondent filed his counter with the following averments. It is true he is a tenant and the petitioner is a landlord in the demised premises. The present monthly rent is Rs. 200/- he is a tenant in the demised premises for more than 40 years. Initially, the monthly rent was Rs. 15/- and the same was enhanced from time to time. It is false to state that he is irregular in payment of rents and he is in arrears of rent for the months of September to November, 1994. It is also false to state that the rent is payable in advance. Initially, the monthly rent was Rs. 15/- and the same was enhanced from time to time. It is false to state that he is irregular in payment of rents and he is in arrears of rent for the months of September to November, 1994. It is also false to state that the rent is payable in advance. The petitioner used to visit the demised premises for collecting rents on every month. In the month of September, 1994 when he tendered rent to the petitioner the rent of August, 1994, when the petitioner came to the demised premises to collect rent from the other tenants, the petitioner evaded to receive rent stating that receipts are not available and he will collect rent later on. Again in the month of October, 1994 he has tendered the rent of September, 1994 and august, 1994, the petitioner refused to receive unless he has to enhance the rent from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 350/ -. On seeing the attitude of the petitioner he has immediately sent M. O. for Rs. 400/- for the rent of August and September, 1994. But the petitioner evaded to receive the same and got endorsed by the post-man as the addressee not present. Since that date the petitioner has been avoiding to collect rents every month. The petitioner also evaded to receive the legal notice sent by him under Section 8 of the rent Act. Finally, he has filed R. C. No. 742/94 on the file of II Additional Rent controller, Hyderabad seeking permission to deposit rent in the Court. As per the interim orders in I. A. No. 761/94 in r. C. No. 742/94 he has been depositing the monthly rents. Thus, there is no wilful default nor arrears. The ground of wilful default is created with a view to evict him from the demised premises at any cost. There is rental deed in writing, dated 10. 1. 1989, and the same is clear that the demised premises was taken for the purpose of ice business. The petitioner has kept the original rental deed with him while giving a xerox copy. The averment that the petitioner is in bona fide requirement of the demised premises for his hotel business is false and concocted. 1. 1989, and the same is clear that the demised premises was taken for the purpose of ice business. The petitioner has kept the original rental deed with him while giving a xerox copy. The averment that the petitioner is in bona fide requirement of the demised premises for his hotel business is false and concocted. The petitioner is in the habit of filing false cases against the tenant on some pretext or other just to harass the tenants and to enhance the rent. In the past also, the petitioner has filed several cases against him on the same ground and those cases were dismissed. The petitioner also filed R. C. No. 113/77 on the file of Additional Rent Controller, hyderabad, on the ground of personal requirement. As soon as the rent was enchanted by him, the petitioner has withdrew the above case. The intention of the petitioner to file this petition is only to enhance the rent. After receiving notice he has given a suitable reply. The petitioner is not at all in bona fide need of the demised premises for his hotel business. The petitioner has been running hotel business in his own premises at Uppuguda for the last 25 years. If the petitioner is in need of mulgi he could have started the same in adjacent mulgi. The petitioner has filed three cases against the adjacent tenants in the year 1993 and 1994 and subsequently withdrew those cases as soon as the respective tenants enhanced to run. In one of the above case, the petitioner has obtained eviction order but he did not execute the same. On the other hand, he received enhanced rent and allowed the old tenant to continue. The above circumstances shows that the petitioner is not in bona fide requirement of the demised premises. The petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands. Hence, petition may be dismissed with costs. ( 10 ) THE petitioner has amended the main petition by way of adding para 3 (a) as per orders in LA. No. 240/95 dated 15. 6. 1995. Hence, the respondent was filed additional counter with the following averments. It is false to state he has been using the demised premises for his residence. It is also false to state that he has secured an alternative accommodation at Dhoolpet and he has been shifted his residence. No. 240/95 dated 15. 6. 1995. Hence, the respondent was filed additional counter with the following averments. It is false to state he has been using the demised premises for his residence. It is also false to state that he has secured an alternative accommodation at Dhoolpet and he has been shifted his residence. It is also false to state that he has been carrying on laundry business in the premises at dhoolpet, Hyderabad. It is also false to state that he has been carrying on laundry business in the premises at Dhoolpet, Hyderabad. It is also false to state that he has sublet the demised premises and the sub-lessee is carrying on the ice business. ( 11 ) ON the strength of the pleadings, the points for consideration had been framed by the learned Rent Controller and after detailed discussion of oral and documentary evidence, the eviction petition was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, as already stated supra, the landlord was unsuccessful even in the appeal and aggrieved by the said order of the appellate authority, the revision was preferred. ( 12 ) THE jural relationship of the landlord and tenant and also the quantum of rent are not in dispute at all. The ground raised by the landlord is that the tenant committed wilful default from August to september, 1994, whereas, the stand of the tenant is that he had tendered rent of august and September, 1994 and the landlord evaded to accept the rents on the ground that he was not having the rent receipt books and when the landlord repeated the same, in the next month the tenant had suspected the attitude of the landlord and had sent rents by money order and since the landlord has not accepted the same, the money order was returned with an endorsement as addressee absent. Then, subsequent thereto, the tenant filed r. C. No. 742/94 to deposit rents and had obtained interim orders and as per the orders in I. A. No. 761/94, the tenant has been depositing rents regularly. The learned Rent controller and also the Appellate Authority, on the strength of Exs. A. 1 to A. 4 and also exs. Then, subsequent thereto, the tenant filed r. C. No. 742/94 to deposit rents and had obtained interim orders and as per the orders in I. A. No. 761/94, the tenant has been depositing rents regularly. The learned Rent controller and also the Appellate Authority, on the strength of Exs. A. 1 to A. 4 and also exs. R. 3, R. 4, R. 17, and R. 18, had arrived at a conclusion that there is no wilful default and even in the case of sub-letting, the courts below came to the conclusion that there is no clear and cogent evidence relating to this ground also. No doubt, there is discussion of other grounds also, which were not seriously urged by the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner-landlord. However, the principal contention raised by the learned Counsel for the landlord is that the total non-examination of the tenant is fatal to the case of the tenant and this aspect was not properly appreciated by both the courts below. In G. K. Carpenter s case (supra) it was observed at paragraph No. 4 as follows:"when a material fact is within the knowledge of a party and he does not go into the witness box without any plausible reason, an adverse inference must be drawn against him. A presumption must be drawn against a parry who having knowledge of the fact in dispute does not go into the witness box particularly when a prima facie case has been made out against him. "the learned Counsel for the respondent-tenant had explained again saying that due to the old age, the tenant was not examined. But, a person who had knowledge about all the aspects of the case, in fact, had been examined and hence, it does not any way alter the situation. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the respective parties, no doubt, had placed reliance on several other decisions also so as to justify their respective contentions. On the appreciation of the overall oral and documentary evidence, no doubt, the Courts below had arrived at a conclusion that no grounds for ordering eviction were made out by the landlord. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the respective parties, no doubt, had placed reliance on several other decisions also so as to justify their respective contentions. On the appreciation of the overall oral and documentary evidence, no doubt, the Courts below had arrived at a conclusion that no grounds for ordering eviction were made out by the landlord. It is pertinent to note that C. M. P. No. 22116/2001 and C. M. P. No. 20306/2001 and C. M. P. No. 21063/2001 were ordered i. e. , the applications filed by both the parties for reception of additional evidence, in view of the respective Counsel reporting no objection for allowing the said applications for reception of additional evidence. In the light of the fact that additional evidence is received by the revisional Court and in view of the submissions made by both the parties, I am of the considered opinion that several of the documents relied upon by both the parties are related to the factual aspects, which may have to be proved by letting in the necessary oral evidence also. Hence, in the light of the additional evidence filed by both the parties and also in the light of the fact that whatever may be the ground, the tenant was not examined at all, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order by remitting the matter back to the appellate authority for the purpose of giving opportunity to both the parties to let in evidence in relation to the documentary evidence relied upon by both the parties at revisional stage and pass appropriate orders in this regard. ( 13 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the appeal allowed to the extent indicated above and the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority for the purposes specified supra. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.