ORDER : These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of similar orders passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Appellate Authority under Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called in short “Rent Control Act”) Vijayawada in five Rent Control Appeals filed by the petitioners/tenants against the Orders passed by Rent Controller-Cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada on same dates in different similar petitions. Since the question of law, facts and issues which arises to be dealt with in all Civil Revision petitions are similar and the matters are distinct only in their receptive petitioners/tenants names those are being disposed of by common orders. 2. These Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Section 22 of Rent control Act against the orders dated 02.05.2015 passed in Rent Control appeals filed by the petitioners/tenants on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Appellate Authority, Vijayawada wherein and whereby learned Appellate Judge dismissed appeals filed by the petitioners/tenants confirming the orders passed by learned Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in Rent Control cases, dated 31.10.2014. The respondent/landlord is common in all Rent Control cases filed against five tenants, who are petitioners herein. 3. The respondent filed five Rent Control cases against five petitioners/tenants in respect of five shop rooms situated within the limits of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation under Section 10(2) (i) of Rent Control Act for eviction of petitioners/tenants from petition schedule shop rooms on the ground of willful default in payment of rents stating that petitioners herein are tenants in non-residential shop rooms for a monthly rent of Rs.10,000/- and tenancy is month to month. The respondent submits that the petition schedule shop rooms belongs to joint family of himself and 13 other family members wherein the petitioners herein are tenants, who used to pay rents to his brother Chalumuri Ramanjaneya Surya Chandra Sekhara Rao and due to dispute in the family of partition suit has been filed wherein preliminary decree passed on 24.03.2009 in O.S.No.280 of 2007 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada, against which an Appeal in A.S.No.393 of 2009 filed by the brother of respondent, which is pending before this Court. It is the contention of the respondent that in the said Appeal Suit, he filed petition for appointment of receiver to collect rents in A.S.M.P.No.1266 of 2010 wherein this Court passed orders on 06.08.2010 permitting him to collect monthly rents from the tenants from August, 2010 onwards due to that he is entitled to collect monthly rents from respective tenants and then he issued legal notice to the tenants on 02.09.2010 informing them about the orders passed by this Court, for which, they issued reply alleging that they have no knowledge about the partition suit which they came to know after receiving legal notice but there is no written legal agreement between themselves and Chalumuri Ramanjaneya Surya Chandra Sekhara Rao, who leased out petition schedule shop rooms on a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/- but not for Rs.10,000/- and thereafter the respondent issued rejoinder notice on 22.10.2010 and then the petitioners herein said to be paid rents to him from August, 2010 to December, 2011 through Demand Drafts which he received by restricting the claim of quantum of rent to admitted rents without prejudice to their rights and contentions. The respondent alleged that the petitioners have paid rents by way of Demand Drafts lastly on 12.01.2012 for the month of December, 2011 and thereafter they have not paid any rents from January, 2012 inspite of his repeated demands thereby they committed default in payment of rents and then he issued legal notice, dated 14.08.2012 demanding them to vacate from petition schedule shop rooms inspite of which they have not paid any arrears of rent, but issued reply notice on 27.08.2012 with a false allegations and then he issued rejoinder notice to him informing the petitioners that he is sending proportionate share of rents to other family members as per orders of this Court in A.S.M.P.No.1266 of 2010 but the petitioners failed to pay rents from January, 2012 onwards due to that he is spending Rs.7,000/- per month from his pocket to send proportionate share of rent to other family members and other family members also issued reply notice that confirming the receiving their share of rent. 4. The main contention of the respondent/petitioner is that all the petitioners have committed willful default in payment of monthly rents from January, 2012 to till 14.09.2012 and sought their eviction. 4. The main contention of the respondent/petitioner is that all the petitioners have committed willful default in payment of monthly rents from January, 2012 to till 14.09.2012 and sought their eviction. All petitioners/tenants have filed counter in Rent Control petitions filed by the respondent with similar averment except in some cases agreed rent said to be Rs.3,500/- per month. It is the contention of the petitioners/tenants that there is no jural relationship between themselves and the respondent as tenant and landlord due to that Rents Control Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition as they originally taken the petition schedule shop rooms from brother of the respondent by name Mr. Chalumuri Ramanjaneya Surya Chandra Sekhara Rao to whom they paid rents till filing of O.S.No.280 of 2007 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada and thereafter they came to know about pendency of A.S.No.393 of 2009 before High Court of Andhra Pradesh when they received legal notice for which they issued suitable reply and in obedience to the orders passed by the High Court in A.S.M.P.No.1266 of 2010, they sent rent by way of Demand Drafts. The petitioners have alleged that the respondent is not their landlord and they are not the parties to the partition suit or in A.S.No.393 of 2009 and thereafter they paid municipal taxes and as some of the family members are regularly demanding them to pay rents directly to them claiming right over the petition schedule shop room, they opened an account in the bank and deposited monthly rents and sent entire deposited amounts after receiving legal notice by way of Demand Drafts after deducting property tax from 01.10.2011 to 31.03.2012 which received by the respondent with an endorsement that without prejudice to his rights due to that now he cannot claim that they are willful defaults as he received rents and they are continuously complying the orders of High Court of Andhra Pradesh and they claimed that they are entitled to continue in the petition schedule premises as they are regularly complying the orders of this Court in A.S.M.P.No.1266 of 2010 in A.S.No.393 of 2009. They prays to dismiss the revision petitions. 5. On behalf of the respondent, he himself examined as PW.1 in all Rent Control cases and marked Exs.P.1 to P.13. On behalf of the petitioners, they themselves examined as RW.1 but no documents were marked. They prays to dismiss the revision petitions. 5. On behalf of the respondent, he himself examined as PW.1 in all Rent Control cases and marked Exs.P.1 to P.13. On behalf of the petitioners, they themselves examined as RW.1 but no documents were marked. (In copy of Judgment in Rent Controller case in the appendix portion name of the tenant witnesses is shown as RW.1 “Devatha Venkateswara Rao” though name of tenants are different. It appears that Rent Controller wrongly mentioned the name of tenants in the Judgment appendix of evidence portion). 6. Learned Rent Controller after hearing both sides allowed the petitions filed by the respondent and ordered for eviction of the petitioners. 7. Aggrieved by the findings of the Rent Controller, the petitioners/tenants preferred five Rent Control appeals which also dismissed by Appellate Judge confirming the eviction orders passed by Rent Controller. 8. Aggrieved by the orders passed by Appellate Judge, the present revision petitions are filed by the petitioners/tenants with similar grounds that the orders passed by Courts below are contrary to law and without jurisdiction. They submits that there is no jural relationship between themselves and the respondent as tenant and landlord, as respondent pleaded that rent of the premises is Rs.10,000/- per month as such eviction proceedings under Rent Control Act are not maintainable. They submits that Court below failed to consider the fact that the respondent admitted the payment of rent till date, who also acceptable the arrears of rent for interregnum period which amounts to waiver of his right to take plea of “default” in payment of rent and Courts below ought not have ordered their eviction. It is the contention of the petitioners that there is a dispute with regard to ownership of the petition schedule shop rooms as they are rival claims and orders passed by this Court in A.S.M.P.No.1266 of 2010 is only an interim arrangement pending appeals on which the respondent cannot seek their eviction. They submits that stoppage of rents for some period is not willfully done but due to the circumstances mentioned in reply notices issued by them but mere default is not sufficient unless it is willful as such Courts below ought not have ordered their eviction. They prays to allow the revision petitions. 9. I have heard both sides. 10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners Mr. They prays to allow the revision petitions. 9. I have heard both sides. 10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners Mr. Sunkara Rajendra Prasad would submit that there is a dispute between family members of landlord due to that a partition suit has been filed which decree against which some of the family members preferred A.S.No.293 of 2009 wherein the respondent herein moved an application for appointment of receiver but this Court permitted the respondent to collect rents and distribute to the family members which shows that the respondent can only collect the rents but he cannot seek the eviction of the petitioners as he is not the landlord. He would further submit that rent some period not paid by the petitioners due to disputes between family members as some of the family members have directly claimed and demanded to pay rents due to that the petitioners have deposited the rents in the bank and thereafter they paid arrears of rent through Demand Drafts after deducting house tax paid by them and after filing of Rent Control petition, they are regularly paying the rents. He argued that the respondent is not entitled to file petition and there is no willful default on the part of the petitioners in payment of rents and not paying the rents for some period is only due to the disputes in the family of the landlords. It is also the contention of learned counsel for the revision petitioners that even the petitioners are evicted from petition schedule shop rooms, the respondent has no right to lease out premises to others as he was permitted to collect the rents only. He prays to allow the civil revision petitions. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. G. Vivekanand would submit that admittedly there is a default in payment of rents which also discussed by Courts below and revision petitioners having paid rents to the respondent for some period cannot plead that the respondent is not a landlord and to cover up their laches, they have taken a plea of that the respondent is not a landlord. G. Vivekanand would submit that admittedly there is a default in payment of rents which also discussed by Courts below and revision petitioners having paid rents to the respondent for some period cannot plead that the respondent is not a landlord and to cover up their laches, they have taken a plea of that the respondent is not a landlord. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that arrears of rent received by the respondent under protest without prejudice to his rights of seeking eviction and petitioners have arrears of rents after filing eviction petition by the respondent and no evidence placed by the petitioners before Rent Controller to show that other family members have demanded to pay rent due to that they stopped paying rents to the respondent. He prays to dismiss the revision petitions. 12. Now the issue that emerges for consideration of this Court is:- “Whether the Orders under challenge are sustainable and tenable and whether the same warrants any interference of this court under Section 22 of Rent Control Act?” POINT:- 13. Before going to the merits of the case, it would be beneficial to extract Sections 2 (vi) and 10 and 22 of Rent Control Act, which reads as under:- “2(vi).Definitions: In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:- (i) xxxx; (ii) xxxx; (iii) xxxx; (iv) xxxx; (v) xxxx; (vi) “Landlord” means the owner of a building and includes a person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building, whether on his own account or on behalf of another person or on behalf of himself and others as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator receiver or guardian, or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, if the building were let to a tenant. Explanation: A tenant who sub lets a building shall be deemed to be a landlord within the meaning of this Act in relation to the sub-tenant.” “10. Eviction of tenants:. Explanation: A tenant who sub lets a building shall be deemed to be a landlord within the meaning of this Act in relation to the sub-tenant.” “10. Eviction of tenants:. - (1) A tenant shall not be evicted whether in execution of a decree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisions of this Section or Sections 12 and 13: Provided that where the tenant, denies the title of the landlord or claims right of permanent tenancy, the Controller shall decide whether the denial or claim is bona fide and if he records a finding to that effect, the landlord shall be entitled to sue for eviction of the tenant in a Civil Court and the Court may pass a decree for eviction on any of the grounds mentioned in the said sections, notwithstanding that the Court finds that such denial does not involve forfeiture of the lease or that the claim is unfounded. (2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. (2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satisfied: (i) that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due by him in respect of the building within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord or in the absence of any such agreement, by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable; or (ii) that the tenant has, in the Andhra area, after the 23rd October, 1945, and in the Telangana area after the commencement of the Hyderabad House Rent Control Order of 1353 Fasli, without the written consent of the landlord: (a) transferred his right under the lease or sub-let, the entire building or any portion thereof if the lease does not confer on him any right to do so; or (b) used the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased; or (iii) that the tenant has committed such acts of waste as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building; or (iv) that the tenant has been guilty of such acts and conduct which are a nuisance to the occupiers of other portions in the same building or buildings in the neighbourhood; or (v) that the tenant has secured alternative building or ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause; or (vi) that the tenant has denied the title of the landlord or claimed a right of permanent tenancy and that such denial or claim was not bona fide. The Controller shall make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building and if the Controller is not so satisfied, he shall make an order rejecting the application: Provided that in any case falling under clause (i), if the Controller is satisfied that the tenant's default to pay or tender the rent was not wilful, he may, notwithstanding anything in Section 11, give the tenant a reasonable time, not exceeding fifteen days, to pay or tender the rent due by him to the landlord up to the date of such payment or tender and on such payment or tender, the application shall be rejected. (3) (a) A landlord may subject to the provisions of clause (d), apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building: (i) in case it is a residential building: (a) if the landlord is not occupying a residential building of his own in the city, town or village concerned and he requires it for his own occupation; (b) if the landlord who has more buildings than one in the city, town or village concerned is in occupation of one such building and he bona fide requires another building instead, for his own occupation; (ii) in case it is a non-residential building which is used for the purpose of keeping a vehicle or adapted for such use, if the landlord requires it for his own use and if he is not occupying any such building in the city, town or village concerned which is his own or to the possession of which he is entitled whether under this Act or otherwise; (iii) in case it is any other non-residential building, if the landlord is not occupying a non-residential building in the city, town or village concerned which is his own or to the possession of which he is entitled whether under this Act or otherwise: (a) for the purpose of a business which he is carrying on, on the date of the application; or (b) for the purpose of a business which in the opinion of the Controller, the landlord bona fide proposes to commence: Provided that a person who becomes a landlord after the commencement of the tenancy by an instrument inter vivos shall not be entitled to apply under this clause before the expiry of three months from the date on which the instrument was registered: Provided further that, where a landlord has obtained possession of a building under this clause he shall not be entitled to apply again under this Clause: (i) in case he has obtained possession of a residential building, for possession of another residential building of his own; (ii) in case he has obtained possession of a non-residential building, for possession of another non-residential building of his own. (b) Where the landlord of a building, whether residential or non-residential, is a religious, charitable, educational or other public institution, it may, if the building is required for the purposes of the institution, apply to the Controller, subject to the provisions of clause (a) for an order directing the tenant to put the institution in possession of the building. (c) A landlord who is occupying only apart of a building, whether residential or non-residential may, notwithstanding anything in clause (a), apply to the Controller for an order directing any tenant occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part of the building to put the landlord in possession thereof, if he requires additional accommodation for residential purposes or for the purpose of a business which he is carrying on, as the case may be. (d) Where the tenancy is for a specified period agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant, the landlord shall not be entitled to apply under this sub-section before the expiry of such period. (e) The Controller shall, if he is satisfied that the claim of the landlord is bona fide, makes an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building on such date as may be specified by the Controller and if the Controller is not so satisfied, he shall make an order rejecting the application: Provided that, in the case of an application under clause (c), the Controller shall reject the application if he is satisfied that the hardship which may be caused to the tenant by granting it will outweigh the advantage to landlord: Provided further that, the Controller may give the tenant a reasonable time for putting the landlord in possession of the building and may extend such time so as not to exceed three months in the aggregate. (4) No order for eviction shall be passed under sub-section (3): (i) against any tenant who is engaged in any employment or class of employment notified by the Government as an essential service for the purposes of this sub-section unless the landlord is himself engaged in any employment or class of employment which has been so notified; or (ii) in respect of any building which has been left for use as an educational institution and is actually being used as such, provided that the institution has been recognised by the Government or any authority empowered by them in this behalf, so long as such recognition continues. (5)(a) Where a landlord who has obtained possession of a building in pursuance of an order under sub-section (3) does not himself occupy it and for the purpose specified in the order within one month of the date of obtaining possession, or having so occupied it, vacates it without reasonable cause within six months of such date, the tenant who has been evicted may apply to the Controller for an order directing that he shall be restored to possession of the building and the Controller shall make an order accordingly notwithstanding anything in Section 3. (b) Where a tenant who is entitled to apply for possession under clause (a) fails to do so within one month from the date on which the right to make the application accrued to him, the Government or the authorised officer shall have power, if the building is required for any of the purposes, or for occupation by any of the officers specified in sub-section (3) of that section, to give intimation to the landlord that the building is so required, and thereupon the provisions of sub-sections (6) and (8) of Section 3 shall apply to the building: Provided that this clause shall not apply to a residential building the monthly rent of which does not exceed twenty five rupees or to a non-residential building the monthly rent of which does not exceed fifty rupees. (6) Where the Controller is satisfied that any application made by a landlord for the eviction of a tenant is frivolous or vexatious, the Controller may direct that compensation, not exceeding fifty rupees be paid by such landlord or the tenant. (6) Where the Controller is satisfied that any application made by a landlord for the eviction of a tenant is frivolous or vexatious, the Controller may direct that compensation, not exceeding fifty rupees be paid by such landlord or the tenant. (7) When an application under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) for evicting a tenant has been rejected by the Controller, the tenancy shall, subject to the provisions of this Act be deemed to continue on the same terms and conditions as before and shall not be terminable by the landlord except on one or more of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3). (8) Notwithstanding anything in this Section, no person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building merely as an agent of the landlord shall, except with the previous written consent of the landlord, be entitled to apply for the eviction of a tenant”. “22. Revision:. - (1) 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 of propriety of such order or proceeding, and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit. (2) The costs of and incident to all proceedings, before the High Court under sub-section (1), shall be in its discretion.” 14. Though the revisional jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act is not wide as appellate jurisdiction, but wider than jurisdiction under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code. When finding of the Rent Controller is confirmed by the Appellate Authority, this Court while by invoking the jurisdiction under Section 22 of Rent Control Act has to consider whether findings of the Courts below suffers from any inherent defect or are based on inadmissible or are irrelevant materials or are perverse. This Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act though cannot reappreciate evidence can examine whether any inadmissible or irrelevant material is taken into consideration by the Courts below. 15. This Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act though cannot reappreciate evidence can examine whether any inadmissible or irrelevant material is taken into consideration by the Courts below. 15. On perusal of orders passed by Rent Controller and also Appellate Authority wherein it is discussed with regard to the admitted rent as in some cases Rs.3,000/- per month and in some cases it is Rs.3,500/- per month, which the petitioners are said to be paid after receiving notice from the respondent herein. It is not the contention of the revision petitioners that they have not at all paid rents to the respondent in pursuance of Ex.P2 legal notice, dated 02.09.2010 but they admittedly stopped paying rents from January, 2012 to till 14. 09.2012 and paid arrears of rent only after receiving another legal notice from the respondent and they have been said to be depositing the monthly rents after filing of the eviction petition by the respondent. Learned Rent Controller also considered the fact about admitted amount of rent and in exchange of notices between the parties as the revision petitioners are claiming that they are paying rents of Rs.3,000/- per month or Rs.3,500/- per month not as Rs.10,000/- per month claimed by respondent in his legal notice (Ex.P2). When the petitioners have paid rents to the respondent as stated by them in their reply notice now they cannot plead that as the respondent claimed that agreed rent is Rs.10,000/- in Ex.P2 notice, Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. When their contention is that agreed rent is Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.3,500/- per month only, the revision petitioners cannot approbate and reapprobate, which is not permissible under law. Therefore the Rent Controller has rightly entertained the eviction petitions filed by the respondent. 16. When admittedly the revision petitioners have paid the rents to the respondent for some period after receiving Ex.P2 legal notice, they cannot deny that the respondent is not a landlord in view of Section 2(vi) of Rent Control Act, which defines, who is a landlord. Learned Appellate Judge also discussed ratio laid down by this Court in Mirza Basharath Ali Khan Vs. Learned Appellate Judge also discussed ratio laid down by this Court in Mirza Basharath Ali Khan Vs. P. Jagannath Rao 2011 (4) ALT 100 wherein it is held that Section 2(vi) of “landlord” means the owner of a building and includes a person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building whether on his own account or on behalf of another person or on behalf of himself and others or as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver or guardian or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, if the building were let to a tenant. Explanation: A tenant who sub lets, a building shall be deemed to be a land lord within the meaning of this Act in relation to the sub-tenant.” 17. It is also held by this Court in the above referred case at para No.23 discussed by learned Appellate Judge, which is extracted hereunder:- “So, the above definition is wide and clarifies that the land lord means and includes the owner of a building, a person who is receiving rents and a person who is entitled to receive the rents of a building whether on his own account or on behalf of another person or on behalf of himself and others. Thus, when a person is authorized to receive rents on behalf of another person, he too comes within the definition of the land lord. Thus, an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver or guardian comes within the definition of a land lord. A tenant, who sub lets a building shall be deemed to be a land lord within the meaning of this Act in relation to the sub tenant. Thus, the definition of the land lord is wide and brings all the above referred persons who receive rents or entitled to receive rents from the tenant”. 18. Learned trial Judge also discussed ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in LIC of India Vs. M/s.India Automobiles and Co., AIR 1991 SC 884 wherein it is held that “the definition of the land lord under the act is very wide and encompasses not only an owner but also persons receiving or entitled receive the rent of the building which has been let out or would be entitled to receive the rent of the building if it were let out to a tenant”. Therefore in the present case, admittedly, this Court in A.S.M.P.No.1266 of 2010 in A.S.No.393 of 2009 permitted respondent herein to collect the rents and distribute to other family members thereby the respondent comes within the meaning of “landlord”, who is entitled to collect the rents as per orders of this Court can be termed as “landlord” is entitled to seek eviction of the petitioners on any of the grounds shown and proved as per Section 10 of Rent Control Act. The main contention of the respondent is that the petitioners failed to pay rent from January, 2012 onwards till the issuance of legal notice (Ex.P6) and reply notice and he issued rejoinder notice and thereafter filed Rent Control petition and then deposited and paid rents. Admittedly petitioners have not paid rents from January, 2012 onwards till 14.09.2012 on which date they said to be sent arrears of rent by way of Demand Drafts after said to be deducting house tax paid by them. For which the explanation on the part of the petitioners herein is that they have not paid rents for some period as some of the family members directly approached them and demanded them to pay the rents due to that they have been depositing the rents in the bank. On perusal of orders passed by Rent Controller as well as Appellate Authority, which will not show that petitioners have adduced any evidence to support their contention. They have not examined any one of the family members of landlord of petition schedule premises or not produced their bank account statement to support their contention. In the absence of the said evidence, it cannot be said that the petitioners have not committed any default in payment of rents. It is no doubt true that every default cannot be termed as willful unless tenants who pleaded that there is no willful default able to prove that there is a plausible reason for them for not paying rents. In the present case, admittedly, revision petitioners have paid rents to the respondent in pursuance of orders passed by this Court in A.S.M.P.No.1266 of 2010 in A.S.No.393 of 2009 some period and pleaded that some of the family members have directly approached them to pay the rents due to that they stopped paying rents to the respondent and deposited monthly rents in a bank but failed to prove the same. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on ratio laid down by this Court in K. Afsarunnisa Begum Vs. K. Anasuya 2006 (3) ALT 740 which also discussed by learned Rent Controller wherein it is held that “Rent Control Legislation cannot be said to be a beneficiary Legislation only in favour of tenants, interest of landlord may have to be taken into consideration while interpreting statutory provisions. It is held that mere default always may not amount to willful default unless there is supine indifference or it is something deliberate, intentional and conscious. When the commission of default is not in controversy, the explanation to be given definitely would be on the tenants to satisfy the conscious of the Court that the default committed during the relevant period will not fall under the expression “willful”. The question is whether the tenants have been successful in discharging the same”. In the present case, explanation which given by the revision petitioners for not paying the rents from January, 2012 onwards till 14.09.2022 is not satisfactory and they failed to prove their explanation by adducing any evidence to support their contention except their oral interested testimony. The petitioners cannot take advantage of dispute between owners of the petition schedule premises and they cannot stop to pay rents inspite of orders of this Court in A.S.M.P.No.1266 of 2010 in A.S.No.393 of 2009 and that too when they paid rents to the respondent for some period cannot stop to pay rents without any reason and reason which they have stated failed to prove by adducing any legally acceptable evidence. Therefore, the respondent/landlord is entitled to seek eviction of the petitioners from petition schedule premises. This Court did not find any illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by Courts below warrants interference of this Court under Section 22 of Rent Control Act. 19. In the result, all Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed with costs. The revision petitioners/tenants shall vacate from petition schedule shop rooms on or before 30.01.2023, otherwise, the respondent can evict them by due process of law. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. The interim stay if any granted stands vacated.