( 1 ) SRI Rama Trading Company, tuni, represented by its Managing Partner, 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 ). The respondent herein the petitioner in R. C. C. No. 9/89 on the file of the Munsif Magistrate-Rent controller, Tuni, filed the petition under section 10 of the Act praying for eviction on the ground of denial of title, yet another ground of wilful default and also another ground of bona fide personal requirement. The learned Rent Controller by order dated 16-4-1996, on appreciation of the evidence of P. Ws. l and 2 and R. W. 1 and Exs. P. l to P. 11 and R. 1 to R. 17, answered all the points in favour of the respondent in the present C. R. P. the petitioner in the r. C. C. , and ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner herein- the tenant filed R. C. A. No. 13/96 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority- cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada and the learned Judge-Appellate Authority confirmed the findings relating to the denial of title and wilful default but had reversed the finding relating to bona fide requirement on the ground that sufficient evidence had not been adduced in this regard. Aggrieved by the same, the present c. R. P. is preferred. ( 2 ) SRI V. L. N. G. K. Murthy, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioner would submit that the evidence relating to wilful default is very vague and the respondent in the C. R. P.-petitioner in the r. C. C. is not sure of the payments and even otherwise, by the date of filing of the eviction petition, all the rents had been paid and hence on that ground the eviction itself cannot be prayed for. The learned counsel also would submit that the respondent herein and his brothers were coming at irregular intervals and collecting the amounts and in this view of the matter also, this cannot be styled as wilful default. The learned counsel also would submit that the respondent herein and his brothers were coming at irregular intervals and collecting the amounts and in this view of the matter also, this cannot be styled as wilful default. The learned Counsel placed reliance on vinukonda Venkata Ramana v. Mootha venkateswara Rao, 2001 (6) ALD 27 (FB) = AIR 2002 AP 52 and Chordia automobiles v. S. Moosa and others, 2000 (4) ALD 49 (SC) = (2000) 3 SCC 282 , in this regard. The learned Counsel further submitted that there is no unequivocal denial of title but what was contended by the revision petitioner-respondent in the R. C. C. , is to the effect that the brothers were coming and collecting rents and in that view of the matter, the said stand was taken and taking the conduct of the parties into consideration, it cannot be said that the revision petitioner- tenant had denied the title of the landlord. ( 3 ) ON the contrary Mr. Hari sreedhar, the learned Counsel would submit that not only there was wilful default from 1988 onwards, the same was continued even subsequent thereto and concurrent findings had been recorded by both the courts below in this regard. Even otherwise, the Counsel would say that the procedure as contemplated by the Act and the Rules made there-under had to be followed in relation to deposit of rents and hence, the said payment cannot be said to be valid payment in the eye of law so as to negative the stand relating to the ground of wilful default. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also by the Appellate Authority and would contend that in view of the concurrent findings, the C. R. P. is liable to be dismissed. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in N. D. Thandani (dead) by LRs. v. Arnavaz rustom Printer and another, 2004 (1) ALD 29 (SC) = AIR 2004 SC 495 . ( 4 ) HEARD the Counsel. ( 5 ) FOR the purpose of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as the landlord and the tenant . The landlord filed R. C. C. No. 9/88 on the file of the munsif Magistrate-cum-Rent Controller, Tuni, with the following averments:"the petition schedule plan house belongs to the petitioner. ( 4 ) HEARD the Counsel. ( 5 ) FOR the purpose of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as the landlord and the tenant . The landlord filed R. C. C. No. 9/88 on the file of the munsif Magistrate-cum-Rent Controller, Tuni, with the following averments:"the petition schedule plan house belongs to the petitioner. He leased out one room and the adjacent varandah which is shown in INTO GEETALU to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- and the respondent is doing business therein. The respondent is not paying the rents regularly and wilfully committing defaults in payment of rents. The respondent has also encroached into the other portion of the house without the consent of the petitioner and using the same. As the respondent did not pay the rents from november, 1986 to March, 1987, the petitioner got issued a notice on 4-4-1987, having received the said notice, the respondent sent a reply with false allegations. Thereupon, the petitioner got issued a rejoinder notice on 25-4-1987 by denying the false contentions of the reply notice issued by the respondent While so, the dispute is brought to the notice of chamber of Commerce, in which the respondent requested time till 31-3-1988 for payment of rents and also to vacate the schedule property i. e. , house and handover the same to the petitioner and also the respondent executed a letter to that effect in favour of the Chamber of commerce, but the respondent did not comply the conditions of the said letter and the respondent did not pay the rents from February, 1988 onwards and wilfully committed default for payment of the same. The schedule house is an old one and there are some defects of vasthu and the petitioner has to rectify the same and live in the house with his family. The petitioner has no other house, except the petition schedule house for his residential purpose. The respondents are having own houses in Tuni, Kothapeta, near the Mill of Pokala Chinnabbai which can be used as godown and also recently constructed a new house and godown in Tuni Chinna veedhi. Besides that so many houses are available for rent in the same street and the goods can be stored in the other partners houses. The respondents are having own houses in Tuni, Kothapeta, near the Mill of Pokala Chinnabbai which can be used as godown and also recently constructed a new house and godown in Tuni Chinna veedhi. Besides that so many houses are available for rent in the same street and the goods can be stored in the other partners houses. Hence, he filed this petition for eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule house and to put him in vacant possession of the same. "the revision petitioner herein-tenant had denied the allegations and also had further averred that the petition scheduled property does not belong to the petitioner, but it belongs to one Kota Sitaramayya, 2nd brother of the petitioner. The petitioner got a separate independent shop in the main road and he gave some portion to other tenant who is running a watch shop. The respondent never committed any default in paying the rents and there are no dues to be paid to the petitioner. The 137 respondent took the premises from one kollepara Kalyanarao, the brother of this petitioner in 1979-80 and they used to pay the rents to the said Kalyana Rao. The said Kalyana Rao, Kota Seetaramayya and the petitioner are brothers. As they have no business, they used to roam from town to town for their livelihood and most of the time they used to spend at visakhapatnam. The three brothers often used to visit Tuni for taking rents, whenever they want to collect the rents. There is no written lease deed in between the petitioner and the respondent. Kollepara kalyana Rao lent the plan No. 1 premises which is annexed to the counter. From 1980-81, the rent was reduced and on behalf of Kollepara Kalayana Rao, this petitioner used to collect rent whenever the brothers jointly require the money. At that time, the portion handed over to the respondent, was shown in Plan No. 2 which was annexed to this counter. The petition schedule property was vacated by the respondent in between the month of november, 1980 till 1981 October. Again the respondent was given the portion from 1981 November. Then the rent was Rs. 210/ - and at the time of fixing the rent at rs. 210/- the further portion was also allotted to this respondent and the respondent is in continuous possession of the same. Again the respondent was given the portion from 1981 November. Then the rent was Rs. 210/ - and at the time of fixing the rent at rs. 210/- the further portion was also allotted to this respondent and the respondent is in continuous possession of the same. The respondent used to pay the rent of Rs. 210/- per month till 1984 June. From July, 1984, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 300/- in which it is clearly mentioned that Rs. 160/- rent is to be paid to the petitioner and Rs. 140/- is to be paid to Kollepara Kalyana Rao and as such, the rent was enhanced from rs. 210/- to Rs. 300/- per month and at the time of enhancement of the rent, further portion was allotted to the respondent for purpose of their business which is shown in the plan No. 4. The joint account was continued in the respondent s shop on behalf of the petitioners family till March, 1986. The petitioner used to collect rents on behalf of Kollepara Kalyanarao. It is intimated that the owner of the premises is Kota Sitaramayya. The respondent is having the only premises for the purpose of running the business. As the respondent used to deal in forest product goods and as it is at the frag-end of Thandava riverbed, being the locality which is convenient for loading and unloading purpose, the portion was taken by the respondent. The green portion shown in the plan is under the control of Kota Sitaramayya and he used to use the same when he visits Tuni. Without any manner of right, the petitioner is threatening the respondent and also proclaiming that he will prevent the right of way, which is having the entrance from north to South, cut the electricity amenities. Though the petitioner and his brothers were informed that they have to attend for the minor repairs of the premises shown interest he plans, they voluntarily neglecting to get the same, due to which the rainfall comes inside and the first forest products that were dumped in the godown will result in damage. The petitioner is residing in the portion situated in the first floor and knowing fully well that the premises is useful for godown purpose, only to harass the respondent, the petitioner unauthorisedly occupied the portion. Kota Sitaramayya is a necessary party to this petition. The petitioner is residing in the portion situated in the first floor and knowing fully well that the premises is useful for godown purpose, only to harass the respondent, the petitioner unauthorisedly occupied the portion. Kota Sitaramayya is a necessary party to this petition. The whole street is mainly used to export and import purposes of various categories of commercial nature business. The petitioner has no necessity to do the Kirana business in the said premises. There is no bona fide requirement for the petitioner and there is no wilful default on the part of the respondent. The respondent never admitted before the Chambers stating that he will vacate the premises on or before 31-3-1988. As there is no time stipulation and no valid contract in between the respondent and the petitioner, the wilful default will not arise in this matter. ( 6 ) THE landlord examined himself as p w. 1 and examined his brother Kalyan rao as P. W. 2 and Exs. P. l to P. 11 were marked. One of the partners of tenant s firm was examined as R. W. 1 and Exs. R. 1 to R. 17 were marked. The learned rent Controller on appreciation of the evidence, recorded findings in favour of the landlord relating to all the grounds and ordered eviction. The matter was carried in appeal in R. C. A. No. 13/96 on the file of rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, and the learned Appellate Authority confirmed the findings relating to denial of title and wilful default but had reversed the finding relating to bona fide requirement. As against the same, the present C. R. P. is preferred. ( 7 ) THE evidence of the landlord had been discussed in detail and concurrent findings had been recorded by the learned rent Controller and also the Appellate authority on the aspect of wilful default. It is true that the learned Counsel representing the tenant pointed out certain findings relating to payments, but, however, the default commencing from the year 1988 as a finding of fact had been recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also the appellate Authority. Strong reliance was placed on Chordia Automobiles v. S. Moosa and others, Vinukonda Venkata ramana v. Mootha Venkateswara Rao and C. Chandramohan v. Sengottaiyan, 2000 (2) ALD 13 (SC) = AIR 2000 SC 568 . Strong reliance was placed on Chordia Automobiles v. S. Moosa and others, Vinukonda Venkata ramana v. Mootha Venkateswara Rao and C. Chandramohan v. Sengottaiyan, 2000 (2) ALD 13 (SC) = AIR 2000 SC 568 . This is a finding of fact recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also the appellate Authority. It is also not shown that during the pendency of proceedings, the procedure had been followed and regular payments of rents are being made. Strong reliance was placed by the Counsel representing the landlord on the ratio in n. D. Thandani (dead) by LRs. v. Arnavaz rustom Printer and another (supra ). In view of the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts on the ground of wilful default, this Court is of the considered opinion that the said findings need not be disturbed since no perversity as such had been pointed out by the learned Counsel representing the Revision Petitioner-tenant. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the very conduct which had been clearly spelt out and recorded by the learned rent Controller and the Appellate Authority definitely would go to show that the denial of title, at any stretch of imagination, cannot be said to be bona fide. The conflict and inconsistent stand taken by the tenant would definitely go to show that the denial of title was made with a mala fide intention only with a view to prolong the matter. Specific stand was taken that the premises were taken from Kalyan Rao, the brother of the petitioner and he was examined as p. W. 2 and he deposed clearly that the stand taken by the tenant is not the correct stand. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the several inconsistent stands taken by the tenant in this regard also had been recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also by the Appellate Authority. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below in this regard, this court does not see any reason to arrive at a different opinion or record different findings and on a careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record and on appreciation of the evidence of P. Ws. l and 2 and R. W. 1, exs. P. 1 to P. 11 and Exs. l and 2 and R. W. 1, exs. P. 1 to P. 11 and Exs. R. l to R. 17, this court sitting as a Revisional Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction, cannot disturb such findings unless they are shown to be perverse or not based on any evidence or improper appreciation of evidence or any other like ground. It is no doubt true that the Appellate Authority had reversed the finding relating to bona fide requirement. In the light of the reasons recorded by the appellate Authority, this Court is of the opinion that the said finding also need not be disturbed. ( 8 ) INASMUCH as the Appellate Authority ordered eviction on the ground of denial of title and yet another ground of wilful default, the said findings are hereby confirmed and accordingly, the C. R. P. being devoid of merit, the same shall stand dismissed. No costs. The tenant is granted three months time to vacate the premises on payment of rent.