( 1 ) AJIT Kumar Jain, Suresh kumar Jain and Prakash Kumar Jain, the sons of Salt Vardichand Kasaji, filed the present C. R. P. under Section 22 of the a. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act, 1960 (hereinafter in short referred to as the Act for the purpose of convenience) as against the order of eviction made in R. C. C. No. 51/97 on the file of Rent controller, Rajahmundry, as confirmed in r. C. A. No. 39/2001 on the file of the appellate Authority under the Rent Control act (Principal Senior Civil Judge), rajahmundry. The revision petitioners are respondents 2 to 4 in R. C. C. No. 51/97. Respondent No. 1 in the aforesaid R. C. C. , sait Vardichand Kasaji is no more. Revision petitioners 2 and 3 herein - R. 3 and R. 4 in R. C. C. No. 51/97 were added as per orders in I. A. No. 659/99 dated 4-10-1999. The respondent in the C. R. P. (hereinafter referred to as the landlord ) filed R. C. C. No. 51/97 praying for the relief of eviction on the grounds of sub-letting, wilful default, bona fide requirement, alternative accommodation, acts of waste and creating nuisance. The learned Rent controller recorded the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 and R. Ws. 1 to 3 and also marked ex. A. 1 to Ex. A. 5 and Exs. B. 1 to Ex. B. 15 and Exs. X. 1 and X. 2 and on appreciation of evidence ordered eviction on all the grounds referred to supra except the acts of waste and creating nuisance. The revision petitioners herein-respondents 2, 3 and 4 in the aforesaid R. C. C. , carried the matter by way of appeal R. C. A. No. 39/ 2001 on the file of Appellate Authority - principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, and the learned Appellate Authority confirmed the order of eviction and aggrieved by the same, the present C. R. P. is filed under Section 22 of the Act. ( 2 ) SRI T. S. Anand, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also the Appellate Authority and would contend that in the light of the stand taken by the revision petitioners, the R. C. C. itself is not maintainable since the contract is an individual contract and there cannot be splitting up of tenancy. The learned counsel placed reliance on Ghanshyam v. Laxmi Narayana, 1990 (1) ALT (NRC) 43 and Chennawar and Company v. R. Madhusudhan Rao, 1999 (5) ALD 1 = 1999 (4) ALT 527. The learned Counsel also would comment that in the light of the facts the requirement on the ground of alternative accommodation is not bona fide personal requirement and in view of this ground raised by the landlord, the revision petitioners (hereinafter referred to as tenants for the purpose of convenience) were deprived of the opportunity of convincing the Court on the ground of relative hardship. The learned Counsel pointed out to the relevant portions of the findings in this regard. While further elaborating the submissions, the learned Counsel also would contend that father inducting the son into possession of the premises would not amount to subletting and the ingredients of sub-letting are not satisfied. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on Ballani Ranganayakulu v. Mattupalli Nageswara Rao, AIR 1992 ap 294 and P. Murali v. Raghunatha rao Ghatge, 2005 (2) ALD 395 (DB) = 2005 (1) ALT 731 . The learned Counsel also would further comment that even on the ground of wilful default relating to the payment of rent as though the payments were not made, the son in fact was making an attempt to make regular payments and merely because father was disinterested in view of the fact that he had parted with the premises, though the conduct of the parties is taken into consideration, it cannot be said to be wilful default though there may be some default in this regard. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on S. Ramalakshmamma v. Lakshmi General stores, 1974 (2) An. W. R. (NRC) 209. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on S. Ramalakshmamma v. Lakshmi General stores, 1974 (2) An. W. R. (NRC) 209. ( 3 ) SRI M. S. R. Subrahmanyam, the learned Counsel representing the landlord had taken this Court through the findings which had been recorded by both the courts below and would comment that in the light of the respective pleadings of the parties and the evidence available on record, there was partition and the rents were being paid separately and there is no question of single tenancy and hence, there is no question of splitting up of any tenancy, whatsoever. The learned Counsel also had pointed out to the relevant findings and would comment that the R. C. C. is perfectly maintainable. The learned Counsel also had pointed out that in the light of the specific stand taken by the father relating to the exclusive possession and control over the property in one son and the other sons also disowning the same, it is a clear case of sub-letting. The learned Counsel also would comment that the application filed under section 8 of the Act also had been dismissed and whatever the reasons may be, the proper person, the tenant, had not paid rents and hence, the findings recorded in relation to the wilful default also may have to be confirmed. ( 4 ) HEARD the Counsel on record and perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record. ( 5 ) THE landlord filed R. C. C. No. 51/ 97 pleading as hereunder :"the first respondent took lease two halls on northern side and two rooms in the western side in the ground floor of the building from the petitioner and his brothers on 1-3-1993 for non-residential purpose for doing business in stainless steel under the name and. style of Suresh metal Stores on monthly rent of Rs. 1,650/- (Rs. 900/- towards rent + Rs. 750/- towards miscellaneous facility charges) payable by first of every succeeding month. The lease is for four years and expires by 28-2-1997. The age of the building is more than 60 years. At the request of the first respondent, two receipts are being passed. The petitioner and his two brothers partitioned their properties on 29-3-1996. Western side premises in building bearing door No. 9- 25-26 fell to the share of the petitioner. The lease is for four years and expires by 28-2-1997. The age of the building is more than 60 years. At the request of the first respondent, two receipts are being passed. The petitioner and his two brothers partitioned their properties on 29-3-1996. Western side premises in building bearing door No. 9- 25-26 fell to the share of the petitioner. Eastern side premises in the same building fell to the share of his elder younger brother srimannarayana Murthy. Both of them became the owners of the building. The same was informed to the first respondent. First respondent is paying the rent of Rs. 750/- (Rs. 400/- towards rent + Rs. 350/- towards amenity charges) to petitioner s younger brother Srimannarayana Murthy and Rs. 900/- (Rs. 500/- towards rent + Rs. 400/- towards miscellaneous facility charges) to the petitioner. Immediately after partition, the petitioner and his brother approached the first respondent and request him to vacate the schedule premises for their personal occupation. First respondent promised to vacate the premises by 28-2-1997 but failed to keep up his promise. First respondent secured alternative accommodation at gunduvari Street in Door No. 9-25-23. The petitioner is a Chartered Accountant and previously worked at Bhadravathy. He retired from services voluntarily and came to rajahmundry to set up his practice as chartered Accountant at Rajahmundry. The petitioner has been living in a rented house at Vekayalavari Street for want of accommodation. The petitioner bona fidely required the schedule premises. There is no oblique motive to file this application. The respondent No. l sub-let the schedule premises in favour of second respondent without consent or permission of the petitioner. The respondents are causing damage to the premises and creating nuisance. First respondent is chronic defaulter in payment of rents. He fell in arrears of rent from March, 1997. The petitioner issued registered notice dated 17-4-1997 demanding the respondents to vacate the schedule premises but they failed to vacate it. Hence, the petition. " ( 6 ) THE original tenant, the father, shown as 1st respondent in the R. C. C. , died and the legal representatives were brought on record. In the counter filed by the 1st respondent it was pleaded as hereunder :"the petitioner and his two brothers srimannarayana Murthy and Nagendra prasad are the owners of the building bearing Door No. 9-25-26 after death of their father. In the counter filed by the 1st respondent it was pleaded as hereunder :"the petitioner and his two brothers srimannarayana Murthy and Nagendra prasad are the owners of the building bearing Door No. 9-25-26 after death of their father. He admitted the taking of lease of the schedule premises from the father of the petitioner. It was not taken on 1-3-1993 to run the stainless steel business in the name and style of Suresh Metal Stores and denied the monthly rent is Rs. 1,650/- (Rs. 900/- towards rent and Rs. 750/- towards miscellaneous facility charges ). A lane and latrine also are part of the schedule premises. It was taken on lease on 1-10-1986 at the rate of Rs. 800/- and executed a lease agreement. The sum of Rs. 6,000/- was deposited by way of security at the time of lease by way of cheque drawn on Canara bank, Rajahmundry. Initially, the lease was 4 1/2 years and it was expired by 31-3-1991. Same is extended from 1991 onwards by oral lease. This respondent paid rents regularly without any default till 1996. Later, this respondent transferred the business in the name of second respondent with full rights and second respondent is carrying on the business as proprietor. After the death of the father of the petitioner, the rent of Rs. 800/- was paid till 2-3-1993. Later the rent was refused. On negotiation, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 900/ -. The petitioner and his brothers received Rs. 2,700/- dated 7-7-1993 representing the rents for the months of april, May, June, 1993. The other allegations that the petitioner is passing two rent receipts is false and there is no miscellaneous facility charges. The petitioner and his two brothers used to issue receipts to the respondents by splitting the total rent into rs. 400/- and Rs. 500/- by issuing two rent receipts. The fact of partition of the properties came to know by this respondent after filing of R. C. C. 21/97. The respondent never paid miscellaneous facility charges to the schedule premises. He denied the allegation that immediately after the partition, the petitioners approached this respondent and requested him to vacate the schedule premises and this respondent agreed to vacate the schedule premises by 28-2-1997 is false. He denied the respondents secured alternative accommodation in Gunduvari street in Door No. 9-25-23. The respondent never paid miscellaneous facility charges to the schedule premises. He denied the allegation that immediately after the partition, the petitioners approached this respondent and requested him to vacate the schedule premises and this respondent agreed to vacate the schedule premises by 28-2-1997 is false. He denied the respondents secured alternative accommodation in Gunduvari street in Door No. 9-25-23. The brother of the petitioner by name Nagendra Prasad unauthorised in collusion with the petitioner demolished the part of the land and removed the latrine in the leasehold premises is false. This respondent got issued legal notice dated 10-2-1997 to said nagendra Prasad, requesting him not to demolish the side lane and latrine. Then he filed a caveat. Second respondent had no other go to file RCC. 21/97 for restoration of amenities. The allegation that the petitioner worked as Chartered Accountant at bhadravathi and after his voluntary retirement he came to Rajahmundry and residing in rented premises in Vankayalavari Street, and he requires the schedule premises for his personal occupation is false. This respondent transferred the business in favour of second 4 and second 4 became the proprietor with full rights. There is only a change of proprietor i. e. , from father to son. There is no change of the name of the firm and nature of the business. The question of sublet does not arise. He denied the allegation that he is causing damage and creating nuisance in the schedule building. He denied the allegation that this respondent committed default in payment of arrears of rent from March, 1997. This respondent offered the rent for the month of March, 1997 personally to the petitioner and his brothers. Both of them refused to receive the same. Then the respondent sent the rent by way of Money Order. The same was refused by the petitioner and his brother. Again the respondent sent the rents for the months of march and April, 1997 by way of Banker s cheques for Rs. 800/- in the name of srimannarayana. Rs. 1,000/- in the name of the petitioner. They were returned by the petitioner and his brother. The petitioner and his brother wilfully refused to receive the rents with a view to show that the respondent committed default in payment of rents. 800/- in the name of srimannarayana. Rs. 1,000/- in the name of the petitioner. They were returned by the petitioner and his brother. The petitioner and his brother wilfully refused to receive the rents with a view to show that the respondent committed default in payment of rents. The respondent got issued legal notice dated 10-6-1997 to the petitioner and his brothers requesting him to furnish their bank account to enable this respondent to deposit the rents. The petitioner and his brother received the notice and kept quiet. This respondent having no other go filed RCC. 54/97 under section 8 of the Act and depositing the rents into the Court without fail. The petitioner got issued notice to the respondent on 17-4-1997 demanding him to vacate the schedule premises. This respondent gave suitable reply. Petitioner wilfully omitted to plead the firm as a party in the R. C. C. On that ground RCC is not maintainable. The firm is a proper party and not showing it in the main RCC is fatal. The present RCC is filed showing the respondent in individual capacity but not showing the firm as a party. The schedule premises was taken in the name of the firm only but not in the individual capacity. The petition is filed with a view to harass this respondent and his son to the extent possible and hence, dismiss the petition with costs. " ( 7 ) 2nd respondent in the R. C. C. adopted the counter filed by the 1st respondent. 3rd respondent also filed a separate counter but virtually adopting the counter of the 1st respondent. 4th respondent adopted the counter of the 3rd respondent in the R. C. C. Additional counter also was filed by the 2nd respondent which was adopted by R. 1. ( 8 ) P. WS. 1 and 2 were examined and ex. A. 1 to Ex. A. 5 were marked. Likewise, r. W. 1 to R. W. 3 were examined and Ex. B. 1 to Ex. B. 15 and Exs. X. 1 and X. 2 were marked. ( 9 ) AFTER framing as many as 8 points for consideration, the learned Rent Controller appreciated the evidence in detail and ultimately ordered eviction on all the grounds except the acts of waste and creating nuisance. B. 1 to Ex. B. 15 and Exs. X. 1 and X. 2 were marked. ( 9 ) AFTER framing as many as 8 points for consideration, the learned Rent Controller appreciated the evidence in detail and ultimately ordered eviction on all the grounds except the acts of waste and creating nuisance. The matter was carried by way of appeal R. C. A. No. 39/2001 on the file of the Appellate Authority and the Appellate authority at Para 12 framed the following points for consideration : (1) Whether two RCC petitions for single tenancy are permissible under law ? (2) Whether the father of appellants-tenants sublet the petition schedule premises to the first appellant -tenant ? if so, whether the eviction can be ordered ? (3) Whether the father of appellants -tenants or the appellants committed wilful default in payment of rent ? if so, whether appellants are liable for eviction ? (4) Whether the appellants secured alternative accommodation ? (5) Whether the respondent - landlord s requirement is bona fide one ? (6) Whether there are any reasonable grounds to interfere with the Lower court judgment ?and recorded findings commencing from paras 13 to 33 and ultimately confirmed the order of eviction. As per the pleadings in the counter and also in the light of the evidence of P. W. 1 and R. W. 1 and the rent receipts, there cannot be any doubt, whatsoever, that there was partition between the brothers and the respective premises had fallen to the respective shares and separate rent was being paid and the same was being collected. Hence, the question of splitting up of tenancy may not arise in the present case though originally during the life time of the father of respective landlords, the property was let out in favour of the father of the revision petitioners. Apart from this aspect of the matter, concurrent findings had been recorded relating to the ground of wilful default. The non-payment of rents is not in serious controversy but the explanation given is that inasmuch as the father had delivered the property exclusively to one of the sons - ajit Kumar Jain, he was responsible for the payments and hence, the father had not paid. The non-payment of rents is not in serious controversy but the explanation given is that inasmuch as the father had delivered the property exclusively to one of the sons - ajit Kumar Jain, he was responsible for the payments and hence, the father had not paid. When father was the tenant at the relevant point of time, the non-payment of rents by the father had been taken into consideration and the concurrent findings had been recorded that default is wilful default. In view of the same, the said findings need not be disturbed. ( 10 ) THE question of sub-letting had been argued in elaboration. If the evidence is carefully scrutinized the concurrent findings need not be disturbed in any way. The specific stand taken by the other brothers of ajit Kumar Jain and also the father of Ajit kumar Jain is to the effect that exclusive possession was delivered to him. It is not the case of the tenants that the father and the son were jointly continuing the business and the son also was doing the business along with the father. By virtue of relationship alone, always the ground of subletting cannot be negatived especially in the light of the pleadings of the father and the other brothers and the stand taken by them. The ground of sub-letting also had been established. It is needless to say that the ground of sub-letting and the ground of wilful default in the present case would almost go together since both are interdependent. On the aspect of alternative accommodation also though an attempt was made that the alternative accommodation secured by the 1st revision petitioner is for a different purpose, no acceptable evidence to establish the same had been placed before the Court and hence, both the courts recorded concurrent findings. An attempt was made to show that the ground of bona fide personal requirement by way of additional accommodation, if the topography as explained by P. W. 1 to be taken into consideration also cannot be sustained but in the light of the evidence available on record, these contentions advanced by the learned Counsel also cannot be accepted. ( 11 ) THIS Court as revisional Court had given its anxious consideration to the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2, R. Ws. l to 3, exs. A. 1 to Ex. A. 5, Exs. B. 1 to Ex. ( 11 ) THIS Court as revisional Court had given its anxious consideration to the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2, R. Ws. l to 3, exs. A. 1 to Ex. A. 5, Exs. B. 1 to Ex. B. 15 and exs. X. 1 and X. 2, and also the findings recorded by both the Courts below and on appreciation of the complete material available before this Court, this Court is satisfied that both the Courts had appreciated all the aspects in proper perspective and had ordered eviction. This Court does not see any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below. There cannot be any serious controversy relating to the propositions which had been laid down in the decisions referred to supra, but however, in the light of the clear concurrent findings recorded on facts, the said decisions may not be applicable to the facts on hand. Accordingly, the C. R. P. shall stand dismissed with costs. The tenants granted six months time to vacate the premises.