ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, ‘Rent Control Act’), is filed by the petitioner/tenant, challenging the judgment, dated 14.06.2017, passed in R.C.A.No.1 of 2014 by the Rent Appellate Authority (Senior Civil Judge), Nizamabad, whereby, the judgment, dated 30.06.2014, passed in R.C.C.No.7 of 2010 by the Rent Controller (Principal Junior Civil Judge), Nizamabad, ordering eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the petition schedule property, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record. 3. The respondent herein is the landlady and the petitioner herein is the tenant of the premises bearing Mulgi No.7-6-563/2 admeasuring 10 X 15 square yards situated at Kisangunj, Nizamabad (hereinafter referred as ‘petition schedule property’). The respondent/landlady filed the subject R.C.C.No.7 of 2010 before the learned Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, seeking eviction of the revision petitioner/tenant from the petition schedule property, contending as follows: “The respondent/landlady is the owner of the petition schedule property. She let out the same to the petitioner/tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.500/- per month about fifteen years ago. The rent was enhanced from time to time and at present, it is Rs.900/- per month. The lease was oral. The rent payable is on yearly basis, i.e., from March to March. The petitioner/tenant paid rent up to 31.03.2009 and committed default in payment of rents from April, 2009 to May, 2010. In spite of repeated demands, the petitioner/tenant failed to pay the rent from 01.04.2009. The youngest son of the respondent/landlady is unemployed and he intends to start a business in the petition schedule property. Though the respondent/landlady requested the petitioner/tenant to vacate the petition schedule property for personal requirement, the petitioner/tenant did not vacate the same. Therefore, the petitioner/tenant is liable to be evicted from the petition schedule property on the ground of willful default in payment of rent and also personal requirement.” 4. The revision petitioner/tenant filed counter, admitting the tenancy. He contended as follows: “House No.7-6-532 consists of several mulgies, including the petition schedule property. Originally, the petition schedule property belonged to one Ram Kishore Jaju, who died about nine years ago. After his death, the respondent/landlady and her family members orally informed the petitioner/tenant that the said properties have been transferred in the name of the respondent/landlady in the municipal records. Originally, the petition schedule property belonged to one Ram Kishore Jaju, who died about nine years ago. After his death, the respondent/landlady and her family members orally informed the petitioner/tenant that the said properties have been transferred in the name of the respondent/landlady in the municipal records. Initially, the father of the petitioner/tenant obtained the petition schedule property on lease from Ram Kishore Jaju under a written lease agreement. The petitioner/tenant became the tenant of the petition schedule property in the year 2001 with the knowledge and consent of the respondent/landlady and her family members. He has been paying rents to the respondent/landlady and her family members and the rent receipts were being issued in the name of the respondent/landlady. The respondent/landlady alone is not the owner of the petition schedule property. Since the original owner of the building, namely, Ram Kishore Jaju died, his legal heirs and successors became the owners of the said building and as such, the claim of the respondent/landlady that she is absolute owner of the entire building, including the petition schedule property, is not correct. The petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Though the rent of the petition schedule property was on monthly basis, but as per the oral terms, the rent was being paid once in a year. The petitioner/tenant never committed any default in payment of rents. As the respondent/landlady was not willing to receive the rents, the petitioner/tenant sent a demand draft, dated 26.06.2010, for Rs.12,600/- towards 14 months rent in the name of the respondent/landlady, through registered post. The respondent/ landlady refused to receive the same. Since the validity of demand draft is only six months and since the respondent/landlady refused receive the same, the petitioner/tenant has cancelled the said demand draft. The sons of the respondent/landlady are doing business and are having shop and godown and their business is well established. Therefore, they do not require the petition schedule property. The respondent/landlady has created a false story of bona fide personal requirement. The respondent/landlady issued a false legal notice, dated 16.06.2010, and as such, the petitioner/tenant did not issue any reply. The petitioner/tenant has developed his business in the petition schedule property and his entire family members are depending on the earnings of the petitioner/tenant. The respondent/tenant has no other business and source of income. The respondent/landlady issued a false legal notice, dated 16.06.2010, and as such, the petitioner/tenant did not issue any reply. The petitioner/tenant has developed his business in the petition schedule property and his entire family members are depending on the earnings of the petitioner/tenant. The respondent/tenant has no other business and source of income. If he is evicted, his entire family members will be put to loss and injury, which cannot be compensated. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.” 5. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, framed the following issues: (1) Whether the respondent committed willful default in payment of rent in respect of the petition schedule property from April, 2009 to May, 2010? (2) Whether the requirement of the petition schedule property by the petitioner is bona fide one? (3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek for eviction of the respondent from petition schedule property? (4) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the revision petitioner/tenant, the revision petitioner/tenant himself was examined as R.W.1, his father was examined as R.W.2 and Exs.R.1 to R.5 and Ex.X.1 were marked. On behalf of the respondent/landlady, the respondent/landlady herself was examined as P.W.1, her two sons were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and Exs.P.1 to P.3 were marked. 7. On merits, the trial Court allowed the subject R.C.C.No.7 of 2010 directing the revision petitioner/tenant to vacate and handover vacant possession of the petition schedule property to the respondent/landlady within two months from the date of the said order, failing which the respondent/landlady is entitled to get the same vacated through process of Court at expense of petitioner/tenant. 8. Aggrieved by the said order of the trial Court, the petitioner/tenant filed the subject R.C.A.No.1 of 2014 before the Court below. The Court below, on re-appreciation of the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal confirming the eviction order, dated 30.06.2014, passed by the learned Rent Controller. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner/tenant filed this Civil Revision Petition. 9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant would contend that there is no willful default on the part of the revision petitioner/tenant in paying the rent of the petition schedule property. The revision petitioner/tenant had sent a demand draft, dated 26.06.2010, for Rs.12,600/- to the respondent/landlady towards rent, but, the respondent/landlady refused to receive the same. 9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant would contend that there is no willful default on the part of the revision petitioner/tenant in paying the rent of the petition schedule property. The revision petitioner/tenant had sent a demand draft, dated 26.06.2010, for Rs.12,600/- to the respondent/landlady towards rent, but, the respondent/landlady refused to receive the same. The respondent/landlady has no locus standi to file the subject Rent Control Case and there is no cause of action to file the subject Rent Control Case. There is no bona fide requirement of the petition schedule property by the respondent/landlady, as she has got other shops in the same building. The Court below refused to apply its mind to a question, which, if examined carefully, could have altered the course of justice. The son of the respondent/landlady is already into a well established business and is in the occupation of entire complex, using the same as godown. The respondent/landlady has approached the Court below with unclean hands by suppressing the material facts. Both the courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence on record in right perspective and ultimately prayed to set aside the judgment under challenge and allow the Civil Revision Petition as prayed for. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel had relied on the following decisions. 1. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 Supreme Court Cases 78 2. G.C.Kapoor Vs. Nand Kumar Bhasin and others, 2002 AIR (SC) 200 3. S.Sundaram Pillai Vs. V.R.Pattabiraman, 1985 AIR (SC) 582 4. Kunji Bai G. Chugani Vs. Fashions, Secunderabad, 2012 (3) ALD 132 5. Yashoda Devi Sarada and another Vs. Poornima Dresses, 2011 (3) ALT 570 6. Mohammed Abdul Rahman and others Vs. B.Manorama and another, 2008 (4) ALT 702 7. Vidyavathi Bai Vs. T.Shankar Lal, 1987 (2) ALT 550 (FB) 8. D.Devaji Vs. K.Sudarashana Rao, 1994 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 729 9. Seshambal (dead) through Lrs Vs. M/s.Chelur Corporation, Chelur Building and others, AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1521 (1) 10. Hasmat Rai and another Vs. Raghunath Prasad, AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1711 11. Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu Vs. The Motor and General Traders, AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1409 12. Amarjit Singh Vs. Smt.Khatoon Quamarain, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 741 10. Seshambal (dead) through Lrs Vs. M/s.Chelur Corporation, Chelur Building and others, AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1521 (1) 10. Hasmat Rai and another Vs. Raghunath Prasad, AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1711 11. Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu Vs. The Motor and General Traders, AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1409 12. Amarjit Singh Vs. Smt.Khatoon Quamarain, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 741 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlady supported the impugned judgment and contended that even if the respondent/landlady refused to receive the demand draft sent by the petitioner/tenant towards rent of the petition schedule property as alleged, nothing prevented the petitioner/tenant to deposit the rent into the Court under section 11(4) of the Rent Control Act. The revision petitioner/tenant willfully defaulted in payment of rent of the petition schedule property from April, 2009 to May, 2010. The youngest son of the respondent/landlady is unemployed. He intends to start a business in the petition schedule property. Hence, the requirement of the petition schedule property by the respondent/landlady is bona fide. The Court below, after appreciation of the evidence, rightly negated the relief claimed by the revision petitioner/tenant. There is nothing to interfere with the same and ultimately prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel had relied on the following decisions. 1. Hyderabad Polmers Private Limited and others Vs. B.Rajani and others, 1994 (1) ALT 518 2. Kasthuri Radhakrishnan and others Vs. M.Chinniyan and others, AIR 2016 SC 609 3. Kollipara Venkat Rao Vs. Moturi Lakshmi Sulochana and others, 2002 (1) ALD 590 4. Mohd. Taufeeq Vs. Ahmadi Begum, 2016 (5) ALD 268 11. In view of the above rival contentions, the point that arises for determination in this Civil Revision Petition is as follows: “Whether the impugned judgment, dated 14.06.2017, passed in R.C.A.No.1 of 2014 by the Rent Appellate Authority (Senior Civil Judge), Nizamabad, is liable to be set aside?” Point: 12. Mohd. Taufeeq Vs. Ahmadi Begum, 2016 (5) ALD 268 11. In view of the above rival contentions, the point that arises for determination in this Civil Revision Petition is as follows: “Whether the impugned judgment, dated 14.06.2017, passed in R.C.A.No.1 of 2014 by the Rent Appellate Authority (Senior Civil Judge), Nizamabad, is liable to be set aside?” Point: 12. As per Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, the High Court may, at any time, on the application of any aggrieved party, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceeding taken under this Act by the Controller in execution under section 15 or by the appellate authority on appeal under section 20, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of such order or proceeding, and may pass such order in reference thereto, as it thinks fit. 13. In a recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Daya Rani and another Vs. Shabbir Ahmed {decided on 22.08.2019 in Civil Appeal No.6594 of 2019), it was held in paragraph No.14 as follows: 14. The law is thus well settled that while exercising revisional power, the High Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence on record, both oral or documentary. Further the consideration while exercising revisional jurisdiction is confined to find out whether the findings of fact rendered by the Court or Authority below were according to law and did not suffer from any error of law. 14. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petition schedule property originally belonged to Ram Kishore Jaju, who is the husband of the respondent/landlady. Though the revision petitioner/tenant took a plea in the Rent Control Case that the Rent Control Case is not maintainable without adding all the legal heirs of Ram Kishore Jaju as parties, admittedly, the revision petitioner/tenant has been paying rents to the respondent/landlady or her children. The revision petitioner/tenant, in his evidence as R.W.1, had categorically admitted that he accepted the respondent/landlady as the owner of the petition schedule property and used to pay rents to her after the death of Ram Kishore Jaju. Therefore, the relationship of landlady and tenant between the respondent and the revision petitioner is established. 15. The revision petitioner/tenant, in his evidence as R.W.1, had categorically admitted that he accepted the respondent/landlady as the owner of the petition schedule property and used to pay rents to her after the death of Ram Kishore Jaju. Therefore, the relationship of landlady and tenant between the respondent and the revision petitioner is established. 15. On the aspect of willful default in payment of rents, P.W.1/landlady deposed that R.W.1/tenant had paid rents of the petition schedule property up to March, 2009 and he committed default in payment of rents from April, 2009 to May, 2010. The evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by the oral testimony of P.W.2 and P.W.3, who are her sons. P.W.1 got issued Ex.P.1 legal notice, dated 16.06.2010, to R.W.1 informing that R.W.1 became defaulter in payment of rents of the petition schedule property and that she requires the petition schedule property for starting business by her youngest son and requested R.W.1 to vacate the petition schedule property. The revision petitioner/tenant acknowledged the receipt of Ex.P.1 legal notice. His case is that when he intended to pay the rent of the petition schedule property from April, 2009 to May, 2010, the respondent/landlady refused to receive the same and hence, he sent a demand draft, dated 26.06.2010, towards rent for the said period. His case is that he never committed default in payment of rents. Though the case of P.W.1 is that the rent is payable on yearly basis, but a perusal of Ex.R.1 to R.5 would go to show that for some period, rent was paid annually and for some period, the rent was paid for one month. It is the case of the revision petitioner/tenant that the respondent/landlady used to pass receipts acknowledging receipt of rents. In such a case, the revision petitioner/tenant could have filed receipts, if any, issued by respondent/landlady between April, 2009 to May, 2010 acknowledging receipt of rent. No scrap paper is filed by the revision petitioner/tenant to show that he tendered rent of the petition schedule property during April, 2009 and May, 2010. Further, it is only after the respondent/landlady got issued Ex.P.1 legal notice, dated 16.06.2010, to the revision petitioner/tenant alleging willful default in payment of rent, that the revision petitioner/tenant sent Ex.P.2 letter, dated 26.06.2010, along with Ex.P.3 demand draft, dated 26.06.2010, for Rs.12,600/- towards rent from April, 2009 to May, 2010. Further, it is only after the respondent/landlady got issued Ex.P.1 legal notice, dated 16.06.2010, to the revision petitioner/tenant alleging willful default in payment of rent, that the revision petitioner/tenant sent Ex.P.2 letter, dated 26.06.2010, along with Ex.P.3 demand draft, dated 26.06.2010, for Rs.12,600/- towards rent from April, 2009 to May, 2010. Moreover, as rightly held by the learned Rent Controller, the revision petitioner/tenant did not avail the remedies available to him under the Rent Control Act by depositing the rents into the bank account of the respondent/landlady or into the Court, for the default period, to prove his bona fides. When default in payment of rent is alleged against the tenant, burden lies on the tenant to prove that he paid rents for the default period but the landlord failed to receive the same. The revision petitioner/tenant failed to discharge his burden by leading cogent and convincing evidence that he paid rents of the petition schedule property from April, 2009 to May, 2010. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with the documentary evidence under Exs.P.1 to P.3 clinchingly establishes that the revision petitioner/tenant committed default in payment of rent. The findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below on this aspect are in accordance with law and do not suffer from any error of law. 16. On the aspect of bona fide requirement of the petition schedule property by the respondent/landlady, the younger son of the respondent/landlady was examined as P.W.2. In his crossexamination, he deposed that he was studying B.Com., till the year 2010 and apart from studies, he was helping his brother in the business. Further, he categorically deposed that he is not doing any business and he has no avocation at present. These statements of P.W.2 are not denied by the revision petitioner/tenant in his evidence. The Court below held that though it is the case of the revision petitioner/tenant that the family of the respondent/landlady is having many mulgies, P.W.2, during his cross-examination, admitted that there were 17 mulgies in H.No.7-6-532 and out of them, in 15 mulgies, they stored plastic ropes, plastic disposal items, i.e., sponges, broom sticks etc., and two mulgies are let out. No rebuttal evidence is adduced by the revision petitioner/tenant to disprove the claim of bona fide requirement of the petition schedule property by the respondent/landlady. No rebuttal evidence is adduced by the revision petitioner/tenant to disprove the claim of bona fide requirement of the petition schedule property by the respondent/landlady. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the requirement of petition schedule property by the respondent/landlady for starting of business by her younger son is not bona fide. 17. Be it noted that the landlord is the best judge to decide as to how to use his own property. He has all the choices to start his business in the premises more suitable and convenient to him. Tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord as to how and in what manner he should use his property. A tenant cannot refuse to vacate a rented premises claiming that his landlord or family has another job or business and is not in bona fide need of the property. It is the landlord’s prerogative as to in which location he prefers to run and expand his business and law should not and cannot prevent such preference by a landlord in order to meet his bona fide requirement. Whenever a landlord seeks ejectment of a tenant for bona fide requirement, it shall be presumed to be genuine and bona fide and the burden to rebut the said presumption lies on the tenant. However, mere assertion on the part of the tenant would not suffice in the absence of cogent and convincing evidence to disprove the claim of bona fide requirement by the landlord. 18. I have gone through the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant. In Hindustan Petroleum Corporation’s case (1 supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the High Court is entitled to satisfy itself as to the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it and that the High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to re-appreciate or reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts and that the revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a Court of first appeal. In G.C.Kapoor’s case (2 supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the settled position of law is that bona fide requirement means that requirement must be honest and not tainted with any oblique motive and is not a mere ‘desire’ or ‘wish’. In G.C.Kapoor’s case (2 supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the settled position of law is that bona fide requirement means that requirement must be honest and not tainted with any oblique motive and is not a mere ‘desire’ or ‘wish’. In S.Sundaram Pillai’s case (3 supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court had drawn a distinction between ‘simple default’ and ‘willful default’. The sum and substance of the other decisions relied by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant is that the requirement of the premises by the landlord should be bona fide in order to evict the tenant and that if a landlord is in possession of a non-residential building in the city, town or village and he requires additional accommodation of a non-residential building in the same locality, Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of Rent Control Act creates an embargo on the same. There cannot be any dispute with regard to law decided in the aforementioned cases. In the instant case, the testimony of the respondent/landlady and her witnesses as to the bona fide requirement of the petition schedule property for starting business by her youngest son was unshaken. Hence, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant are distinguisbale on facts from the case on hand. 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that findings of fact recorded by the Court below are according to law and do not suffer from any error of law. The Court below appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record in correct perspective and rightly dismissed the appeal. There is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the judgment under challenge. There is nothing to take a different view. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 20. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand closed.