O R D E R Heard Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, the learned Counsel for the Revision petitioner and Sri Nandigama Krishna Rao, the learned Counsel representing the respondents. 2. Facts in nutshell : The unsuccessful tenant in R.C.C.No.18/88 on the file of learned Rent Controller, Tenali and R.C.A.No. 14/92 on the file of Appellate Authority/Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali had preferred the present Civil Revision Petition under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, in short hereinafter referred to as “Act” for the purpose of convenience. 3. One Kothamasu Saraswa-tamma, the landlady filed R.C.C.No.18/88 on the file of learned Rent Controller, Tenali on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents. The learned Rent Controller recorded the evidence of P.W.1, R.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-3 and Ex.B-1 and came to the conclusion that the ground of wilful default had been established by the landlady and ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful tenant carried the matter by way of Appeal R.C.A.No.14/92 on the file of Appellate Authority/Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali. In view of the fact that the said Kothamasu Saraswatamma, the landlady, died, P.W.1, the husband of the landlady Kothamasu Ramakoteswararao and also the other legal representatives of the said deceased landlady were brought on record. Before the Appellate Authority, on behalf of the appellant, several receipts Exs.B-2 to B-36 were marked. The Appellate Authority on appreciation of the evidence available on record and taking into consideration the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the Appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the unsuccessful tenant. The legal representatives of the original landlady shown as respondents 1 to 3 in the present Revision, hereinafter would be referred to as landlords for the purpose of convenience. 4. Contentions of Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu : Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, the learned Counsel representing the Revision petitioner/tenant had taken this Court through the evidence of P.W.1, R.W.1 and also the documentary evidence available on record, both marked before the Court of first instance and also the Appellate Authority. 4. Contentions of Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu : Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, the learned Counsel representing the Revision petitioner/tenant had taken this Court through the evidence of P.W.1, R.W.1 and also the documentary evidence available on record, both marked before the Court of first instance and also the Appellate Authority. The learned Counsel would point out that when subsequent events are taken into consideration and the eviction to be ordered on the strength of such subsequent events, it would be essential that such subsequent events to be brought to the notice of this Court by way of an affidavit or otherwise and an opportunity to be given to the other side to explain the same. The learned Counsel would maintain that unfortunately the said procedure was not adopted in the present case. The learned Counsel also pointed out that in the light of Ex.A-3 it is clear that though the tenant was making some lumpsum irregular payments the landlady was receiving the same and in the light of the conduct of the landlady and also in the light of the evidence of P.W.1 it cannot be said that the said delayed payments can be styled as wilful default. The learned Counsel also further made elaborate submissions in relation to the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also the Appellate Authority and would further maintain that inasmuch as the landlady was not examined and only the husband of the landlady was examined, adverse inference may have to be drawn in the light of the law laid down in VIDYADHAR VS. MANIK RAO (1). The learned Counsel also placed reliance on S.P. DESHMUKH VS. SHAH NIHAL CHAND (2), N.KUMARA SWAMY VS. A.INDRASEVA (DIED) AND OTHERS (3). 5. Contentions of Sri Nandigama Krishna Rao : Sri Nandigama Krishna Rao, the learned Counsel representing the legal representatives of the landlady, respondents herein/landlords, made the following submissions. The learned Counsel would point out that even if the subsequent default not to be taken into consideration in the light of the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below on the aspect of wilful default, the said findings need not be disturbed by the Revisional Court. The learned Counsel would point out that even if the subsequent default not to be taken into consideration in the light of the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below on the aspect of wilful default, the said findings need not be disturbed by the Revisional Court. Even otherwise, the learned Counsel would submit that the Appellate Authority permitted the tenant to mark the receipts at the appellate stage and inasmuch as the said documents were marked at the instance of the tenant, the same had been well considered at para-23 by the Appellate Authority. The Counsel also would maintain that even by considering those documents which had been putforth by the tenant at the appellate stage, a further finding had been recorded that it is a case of wilful default. The learned Counsel would maintain that it is only an additional factor which had been recorded by the Appellate Authority. But however, the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below on the original stand of wilful default taken by the landlady had not been in any way shattered by the tenant and that was the reason why both the Courts recorded concurrent findings and hence in the light of the limitations imposed on this Court while exercising Revisional jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act aforesaid, the Revision is liable to be dismissed. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on ATUFA TRAVELS, HYDERABAD VS. GANGABAI (4) and V.V.KRISHNA VARA PRASAD VS. S.SURYA RAO (5). 6. Heard the Counsel on record and perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also by the Appellate Authority. 7. It is needless to say that the landlady is no more and her legal representatives were brought on record at the appellate stage and at present they are resisting the attempt on the part of the tenant to get the order of eviction set aside in the present Civil Revision Petition. As already referred to supra, the landlady filed RCC.No.18/88 on the file of learned Rent Controller, Tenali wherein the order of eviction was made and the same was carried by way of Appeal by the tenant unsuccessfully in R.C.A.No.14/92 on the file of Appellate Authority/Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali wherein the same was confirmed. As already referred to supra, the landlady filed RCC.No.18/88 on the file of learned Rent Controller, Tenali wherein the order of eviction was made and the same was carried by way of Appeal by the tenant unsuccessfully in R.C.A.No.14/92 on the file of Appellate Authority/Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali wherein the same was confirmed. It is pertinent to note that several of the receipts Exs.B-2 to B-36 were marked at the appellate stage at the instance of the tenant. It is also not in serious controversy that concurrent findings had been recorded by both the Courts below and aggrieved by the same the present Revision is preferred. Some comment was made in relation to the examination of the husband of the landlady as P.W.1 by the learned Counsel representing the Revision Petitioner/tenant. It is needless to say that P.W.1 in fact is in know of things to depose on all the aspects and inasmuch as P.W.1 is none other than the husband of the landlady he is a competent witness to depose on behalf of the landlady even in the light of the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. Hence the question of drawing adverse inference for nonexamination of the landlady may not arise in the present case. 8. Be that as it may, the original landlady who is no doubt no more, filed the aforesaid R.C.C. on the ground that the Revision petitioner/tenant had taken the schedule premises for residential purpose and also for carrying on the radio repairing business and originally the rent was Rs. 175/- per month, but subsequently enhanced to Rs.225/- per month. The rent was agreed to be paid by the end of every month. Specific stand was taken that the tenant always had been irregular in payment of rents and had been a chronic defaulter and he used to pay personally on some occasions and through his sons on certain occasions. It was also stated that whenever the rents were paid the same had been reduced into writing and either the tenant or his sons used to sign the same. It is the specific case of the landlady that by 30-10-1986 the tenant had fallen into arrears of rent for eleven months. Thus the tenant committed wilful default. The landlady issued a registered notice to the tenant and the tenant issued a reply with untenable allegations. It is the specific case of the landlady that by 30-10-1986 the tenant had fallen into arrears of rent for eleven months. Thus the tenant committed wilful default. The landlady issued a registered notice to the tenant and the tenant issued a reply with untenable allegations. Even by the end of July 1988 the tenant had to pay Rs.7200/- as arrears of rent. The said stand taken by the landlady was resisted by the tenant no doubt admitting that the present monthly rent is Rs.225/-. But however, the tenant had taken a stand that there was no practice of payment of rent every month and the husband of the landlady used to collect rents whenever the tenant was paying the same and he paid rents upto October 1986. For a period of six months prior to November 1986 the husband of the landlady had not taken his signature or his sons signature in the books maintained by him and this was done only with a view to evict him and subsequent thereto demanded him to vacate the premises or to enhance the rent and inasmuch as the tenant refused to enhance the rent this eviction petition was thought of. Further stand was taken by the tenant that for the month of October 1986 he sent the rent by money order which was refused by the landlady and along with reply notice he sent Rs.900/- through demand draft towards rent for the months of October 1986 to January 1987. However by mistake it was mentioned in the reply notice that the rent was for the months of November to January. The landlady refused to receive the rent and returned the draft and subsequent thereto the tenant used to deposit rents in his savings bank account in Andhra Bank and hence he is not a wilful defaulter. 9. On the strength of the respective pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following Points for consideration: 1. Whether the respondent committed wilful default in payment of rents from December 1985 onwards? 2. Whether he is liable to be evicted from the petition schedule property ? On behalf of the landlady, her husband was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A-1 office copy of notice, Ex.A-2 reply notice and Ex.A-3 list of payments, had been marked. On behalf of the tenant R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 receipt was marked. 2. Whether he is liable to be evicted from the petition schedule property ? On behalf of the landlady, her husband was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A-1 office copy of notice, Ex.A-2 reply notice and Ex.A-3 list of payments, had been marked. On behalf of the tenant R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 receipt was marked. However as already stated supra, before the Appellate Authority several receipts were marked by the tenant Exs.B-2 to B-36. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the ground of wilful default was established and aggrieved by the same the matter was carried by way of R.C.A.No.14/92 on the file of Appellate Authority/Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali. As already referred to supra, during the pendency of the Appeal the landlady died and her legal representatives shown as respondents/landlords were impleaded as parties. 10. At para-16 of the order, the Appellate Authority framed the following Points for consideration : 1. Whether the appellant/tenant herein committed wilful default ? 2. To what relief ? The Appellate Authority had recorded reasons in detail commencing from para 17 to para 32 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the Appeal is devoid of merit and dismissed the same. 11. On the aspect of non-affording of opportunity in the context of subsequent events or subsequent default, submissions at length were made by the Counsel representing the Revision petitioner/tenant. It is pertinent to note that Exs.B-2 to B-36 receipts were marked at the instance of the appellant/tenant before the Appellate Authority/Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali. It may be appropriate to have a look at what had been recorded by the learned Appellate Authority in its Judgment in this regard at para-23, which reads as hereunder : “In this appeal the appellant got marked Exs.B-2 to B-36, the receipts to show that the tenant paid rents to the landlord under some of the receipts the petitioner received rents without prejudice to her contentions. Even Exs.B-7. B-8. B-23, B-24 and B-32 the bank receipts under which the rents were remitted would go to show that even subsequent to filing of the petition the tenant chose to deposit rents at irregular intervals. Under Ex.B.7 the rents due from July 1989 to February 1990 and under Ex.B-8, the rents for two months at a time were paid. B-8. B-23, B-24 and B-32 the bank receipts under which the rents were remitted would go to show that even subsequent to filing of the petition the tenant chose to deposit rents at irregular intervals. Under Ex.B.7 the rents due from July 1989 to February 1990 and under Ex.B-8, the rents for two months at a time were paid. Likewise under Ex.B.23, B.24, B.32 the consolidated amounts of rents due for more than one month were credited into the account of the petitioner. Thus the subsequent conduct of the tenant also clearly debars the tenant from contending that he is entitled to pay the rent as and when he chose to pay rent to the landlord.” It is needless to say that in the event of the landlady or landlords relying upon such documentary evidence or in putting forth the subsequent events if any by filing an affidavit or by not affording opportunity to the opposite party to explain the stand, the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel representing the Revision petitioner/tenant may have some substance. But the situation appears to be something different. Most probably to explain that he had not committed any wilful default at all reliance was placed on Exs.B-2 to B-36 receipts and even on the strength of the said documentary evidence placed before the Appellate Authority certain findings had been recorded. Hence the ground of non-affording opportunity on the ground of subsequent events also may not be available to the tenant in the peculiar facts of this case. 12. Now, coming to the question whether the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below on the question of wilful default to be disturbed or to be confirmed by this Revisional Court, it is needless to say that normally when concurrent findings had been recorded by both the Courts below on appreciation of the evidence available on record, the Revisional Court would be slow in disturbing such findings though in certain specified circumstances the Revisional Court may interfere. P.W.1 deposed in relation to Ex.A.1. Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3 and P.W.1 also deposed that whenever the tenant was paying rents he was obtaining the signatures either of the tenant or the sons of the tenant and whenever the tenant was paying the rent he was taking the signatures in his paper and he was signing in the book maintained by the tenant. Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3 and P.W.1 also deposed that whenever the tenant was paying rents he was obtaining the signatures either of the tenant or the sons of the tenant and whenever the tenant was paying the rent he was taking the signatures in his paper and he was signing in the book maintained by the tenant. P.W.1 no doubt deposed that he refused to receive the rent sent by money order in the month of October 1986. But however, P.W.1 specifically deposed that inasmuch as the arrears were not paid, in the light of the conduct of the tenant he had refused to receive the money order. He had also explained the stand in relation to the subsequent sending of the demand draft and refusal to receive the same. R.W.1 no doubt deposed about how the signatures were being taken and also explained that he paid rent twice and however he was assured that the signatures will be taken later and subsequent thereto P.W.1 had not received the rent and he had also not obtained the signatures. In the cross-examination R.W.1 deposed that at the time of lease he was asked to pay rent every month but however there was no any other agreement. This witness also deposed that either this witness or his son were putting their signatures in Ex.A.3. But however he was unable to give the dates in relation to the payments said to have been made. Specific stand was taken by this witness that after 14-5-1986 he paid the same on two occasions. It is pertinent to note that he was unable to give details or further particulars in this regard and he was unable to explain properly in relation to the signatures in Ex.A.3 and he was unable to explain in relation to the specific stand taken by the landlady, the ground of wilful default. 13. It is not in serious controversy that even as reflected from Ex.A.3, the tenant was irregular in payment of rents. However, the explanation given by the tenant is that P.W.1 had been receiving the rents at irregular intervals and hence this cannot be styled as wilful default. It is pertinent to note that R.W.1 made an admission to the effect that at the time of entering into the lease, there was an agreement to pay the rent every month. However, the explanation given by the tenant is that P.W.1 had been receiving the rents at irregular intervals and hence this cannot be styled as wilful default. It is pertinent to note that R.W.1 made an admission to the effect that at the time of entering into the lease, there was an agreement to pay the rent every month. There is no serious controversy that even by the month of October 1986 the tenant had fallen into arrears of rent for a period of eleven months. This is clear from the evidence of P. W.1 and R. W.1 coupled with Ex.A.3. Hence, in the light of this evidence available on record, both the Courts recorded concurrent findings on the ground of wilful default and ordered eviction. The evidence available on record in fact had been dealt with in detail. The additional evidence produced by the tenant before the Appellate Authority also had been taken into consideration. It is pertinent to note that even in these documents produced by the tenant before the Appellate Authority the payments appear to be not regular and this conduct of the tenant also had been taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority. On a careful scrutiny of the whole evidence available on record and also the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also the Appellate Authority and also in the light of the reasons recorded in detail by the Appellate Authority commencing from para 17 to para 32, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and accordingly the same shall stand dismissed, with costs. However, the Revision petitioner/tenant is granted time to vacate the premises till the end of August 2006 on condition of filing an undertaking before this Court to vacate the premises within a period of two weeks from today and also on a further condition of payment of rents regularly during the said period also to the present landlords/legal representatives of the original landlady. --X—