( 1 ) THE revision petitioners are the legal representatives of the landlady, Kalava i das. The landlady filed R. C. C. No. 31 of 1991 on the file of the Principal District Munsiffcum-Rent Controller, Vizianagaram praying for the relief of eviction. The learned Rent controller recorded the evidence of P. W. 1, r. Ws. 1 and 2, marked Exs. A-1 to A-4, exs. B-1 to B-6 and Exs. C-1 to C-3 and ultimately ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the same, the tenants preferred rent control appeal R. C. A. No. 1 of 2001 on the file of the rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Senior civil Judge at Bobbili and the appellate authority allowed I. A. No. 159 of 2001 and received certain documen but however, dismissed the I. A. No. 245 2001 filed by the legal representatives of the landlady, the respondents in the appeal, and on appreciation of the evidence available on record reversed the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and allowed the appeal negativing the relief of eviction. Aggrieved by the same, the said legal representatives, the respondents in the appeal, had preferred this 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 forthe purpose of convenience ). The revision petitioners also filed C. R. P. M. P. N0. 5340 of 2005 narrating the subsequent events and the second respondent filed counter affidavit pleading no knowledge about certain facts and denying certain facts. ( 2 ) SRI T. S Anand, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioners had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the Rent Controller and also the appellate authority and would point out thatthe appellate authority had reversed the well considered findings of the learned Rent Controller. The learned counsel would contend that though the mother, the landlady is no more, the bona fide requirement as far as second son is concerned, it survives and the evidence of p. W. 1 is available on record in relation thereto. The learned counsel would contend that though the mother, the landlady is no more, the bona fide requirement as far as second son is concerned, it survives and the evidence of p. W. 1 is available on record in relation thereto. The learned counsel also would comment that there is no acceptable explanation for the payment of lumpsum amount by way of demand draft for a period of 11 months and a clear finding had been recorded by the learned Rent Controller and in the absence of any acceptable explanation on the part of the tenants, the legal representatives of the landlady are bound to succeed even on the ground of wilful default. The learned counsel also would comment that even otherwise the view expressed in relation to the applicability of Section 7 of the Act also cannot be sustained since the amount is said to have been paid undera promissory note and hence, the question of the landlady having advance amount with her would not arise at all. The learned counsel further commented that, at any rate, in the light of the subsequent events pleaded in C. R. P. M. P. No. 5340 of 2005, the petitioners are bound to succeed. ( 3 ) PER Contra, Sri Ramlinga Swamy, the learned counsel representing the respondents-tenants would maintain that the appellate authority had recorded the reasons in detail and, in fact, the conduct of the parties, if taken into consideration, the lump sum payment by way of demand draft cannot be said to be wilful default. The learned counsel also explained in detail the applicability of Section 7 of the Act, in the facts and circumstances of the case and had pointed out the relevant findings in relation thereto. The learned counsel also would submit that during the lifetime of the landlady, the landlady had not chosen to examine herself and the second son also was not examined to prove the ground of bona fide personal requirement. Hence, the counsel would contend that the appellate authority had arrived at a correct conclusion in reversing the order of the learned Rent Controller. ( 4 ) HEARD both the counsel. ( 5 ) THE second respondent in the C. R. P. , the second respondent even in R. C. C. No. 31 of 1991 was examined as R. W. 1. ( 4 ) HEARD both the counsel. ( 5 ) THE second respondent in the C. R. P. , the second respondent even in R. C. C. No. 31 of 1991 was examined as R. W. 1. The first revision petitioner, one of the legal representatives of the landlady, was examined as P. W. 1. Apart from R. W. 1 one satyanarayana was examined as R. W. 2. Exs. A-1 to A4, Exs. B-1 to B-6 and Ex. C-1 to c-3 were marked. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that inasmuch as the adjustment of amount as per the instructions of the landlady appears to be nearer to truth, the tenants are not wilful defaulters of payment of rent from 1-11-1988 to August, 1990. However, the Rent Controller arrived at a conclusion that in the light of the lump sum payment of Rs. 5,500/ - for 11 months from september, 1991 to July, 1991 by demand draft in the absence of any explanation, the same would amount to wilful default. On the aspect of alternative accommodation, the learned Rent Controller recorded a finding that the landlady failed to prove that the second respondent secured alternative accommodation. Further, on appreciation of evidence, the learned Rent Controller also arrived at a conclusion that the requirement of the petition schedule premises by the landlady for the personal occupation of the second son to do business is genuine and accordingly, ordered eviction. The appellate authority had entertained additional evidence at the appellate stage, marked as document nos. 1 to 4, but however, dismissed similar application filed by the legal representatives of the landlady in 1. A. No. 245 of 2001 under order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC, the certified copy of the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 20 of 1992 on the file of the Senior Civil judge, Vizianagaram. It is no doubt stated that an appeal had been preferred, but the result of the appreal is not known as on to day. It is no doubt stated that an appeal had been preferred, but the result of the appreal is not known as on to day. The appellate authority relied upon section 7 of the Act and also the decisions in modem Hotel, Gudur v. K. Radhakrishnaiah and others Bhoja alias Bhoja Ram Gupta v. Rameshwar Agarwala and others, Kranti swaroop Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. , and another v. Smt. Kanta Bal Asawa and others and adapa Santharam and another v. Sait nathmal Manik Chand and came to the conclusion that in the light of the rigor imposed by Section 7 of the Act and also in the light of the oral evidence available on record, the adjustment may have to be believed and hence, taking the conduct of the parties into consideration, the ground of wilful default was negatived. Likewise, after recording certain reasons, the other ground of bona fide personal requirement also had been reversed. As can be seen from the material available on record, the transaction is a promissory note between the landlady and the second tenant. Some oral evidence no doubt had been let in to connect this document with the said advancement of the amount liable to be adjusted in relation to the rents. In the light of the language employed in section 7 of the Act, it is doubtful whether all such monetary transactions like covered by promissory note etc. , would fall within the meaning of the rigor of Section 7 (1) of the Act read with Section 7 (3) of the Act. It is needless to say that there may be several transactions, but the relationship may be that of the creditor and the debtor and necessarily such a relationship cannot be said to be as one concerned with the advancement of amount between the landlord and the tenant or the landlady and the tenant as the case may be. Apart from this aspect of the matter, relating to the lump sum payment also and the conduct in relation thereto, the evidence of R. W. 1 and r. W. 2 alone is available on record. It is true that the landlady who is a very old lady at the relevant point of time was not examined one of the sons alone had been examined and the second son was not examined. However, in C. RP. MP. It is true that the landlady who is a very old lady at the relevant point of time was not examined one of the sons alone had been examined and the second son was not examined. However, in C. RP. MP. No. 5340 of 2005 wherein the subsequent events were brought to the notice of this Court, it was pleaded that during the pendency of the proceeding, the Fancy and general Merchants shop which the second revision petitioner was having within the railway station premises was dismantled for extension of the railway ticketing counter and at present he is jobless and there is no other source of livelihood and on this ground also they are entitled to the relief of eviction. As far as this aspect is concerned, in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it was stated that they have no knowledge about the same, but however, further stated that he secured accommodation near railway station adjacent to village temple in the business area and no doubt, several other facts also had been narrated in the counter affidavit. ( 6 ) IN the light of the respective stands taken in the affidavit filed in support of the application and the counter affidavit, the factual aspects may have to be enquired into and parties may have to let in evidence in relation thereto. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the findings recorded by the appellate authority are not happily worded especially in the light of the applicability or otherwise of the section 7 of the Act in relation to a promissory note, in the light of the language employed in section 7 (1) of the Act. ( 7 ) IN the light of the reasons recorded above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the parties to be given an opportunity to let in further evidence relating to all aspects inclusive of subsequent events which had been put forth before the revisional Court. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the appellate authority forthe purpose of affording opportunities to both the parites to let in further evidence, if the parties require to do so, relating to the subsequent events and also in relation to the other grounds. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the appellate authority forthe purpose of affording opportunities to both the parites to let in further evidence, if the parties require to do so, relating to the subsequent events and also in relation to the other grounds. It is also made clear that both the parties are at liberty to-produce any additional oral and documentary evidence also inclusive of the certified copy of the judgment and decree in o. S. No. 20 of 1992. ( 8 ) WITH t