ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/tenant under Section 22 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (herein after called in short ‘Rent Control Act’) against the Orders passed in RCA No.22 of 2013, dated 17.07.2015 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, wherein and whereby the learned Appellate Judge dismissed the Rent Control Appeal filed by the revision petitioner/tenant and confirmed the Orders passed by the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur in RCC No.17 of 2010, dated 05.11.2013. The revision petitioner, who is the tenant of R1 in respect of RCC No.17 of 2010 case schedule shop room. R1/landlord filed petition against revision petitioner before the Rent Controller under Section 10(2)(i)(iii) and 10(3)(I)(a)(d) and 10C(1)(a) of Rent Control Act seeking eviction of the petitioner from the petition schedule property and for delivery of the vacant possession of the same. During the pendency of the petition, R1/landlord died and R2 to R4 were brought on record as her legal heirs. 2. The petitioner and R2 to R4 hereinafter referred to as tenant and landlords as arrayed before the Rent Control Court. 3. The landlord filed petition stating that the petition schedule premises consisting of ground and first floor. The ground floor let out to the tenant for monthly rent of Rs.1,100/- per month in December, 1993 for running a printing press and later on a lease agreement was entered on 25.01.1997 for a period of seven years. The agreed rent was Rs.1,300/- per month from August, 1999. She submits that the tenant also occupied first floor and lease period was expired by 25.01.2004, in spite of it the tenant is continuing in the premises unauthorizedly without any further lease by conducting the business in the ground floor and using the first floor for his residence. The agreed rent was Rs.1,300/- per month from August, 1999. She submits that the tenant also occupied first floor and lease period was expired by 25.01.2004, in spite of it the tenant is continuing in the premises unauthorizedly without any further lease by conducting the business in the ground floor and using the first floor for his residence. It is the contention of the landlady/1st petitioner that she is a retired lecturer, aged about 85 years demanded the tenant to vacate the premises after completion of lease period on 25.01.2004, for which the tenant refused and then he filed suit in OS.No.1292 of 2004 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Guntur which was decreed and thereafter the landlady/1st petitioner filed suit in OS.No.2691 of 2004 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Guntur for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rents and on other grounds, which was dismissed and then she preferred an appeal which also dismissed. Now, the landlords preferred Second Appeal before this Court. It is alleged that the tenant paid rents upto December, 2006 and later failed to pay the rents regularly, as the legal proceedings pending between the parties, the landlady was under an impression that the tenant will deposit rents in that proceedings, which he failed to do so and he is in unauthorized occupation of petition schedule premises without paying rents regularly from January, 2007. It is also the contention of the landlady that she requires petition schedule premises for her personal occupation as of now she being retired person wants to settle at Guntur and lease period was also completed by 01.11.2008 itself. They pray for eviction of respondents. 4. The tenant resisted the contention of landlords and filed counter before the Rent Controller stating that he joined as tenant in the petition schedule premises on 27.12.1993 for running ‘Dharani’ Evening Daily Newspaper and ‘Dharani’ Printing Press and thereafter he is also running ‘Dharani’ Fashion Technology in the premises from the year 2003 and he is tenant for using the premises for three types of his businesses, which he started by borrowing the amounts from the S.C.Corporation, Guntur and also from several individuals. He submits that if he is evicted from the premises, he will sustain huge loss in the business. He submits that if he is evicted from the premises, he will sustain huge loss in the business. He alleged that the landlady/1st petitioner is old aged women, who is not living separately, but staying at Vijayawada with her daughter, who owns a house at Vijayawada and landlady not required the premises for her personal occupation. It is also the contention of the tenant that he is making necessary repairs as required to the premises and spent Rs.15,000/-, out of it, the landlady agreed to bear 50%, which also informed to her by phone. The main contention of the tenant is that at the instance of her daughter, the landlady/1st petitioner tried to evict him forcibly, due to that he filed suit for injunction and the landlady also filed suit for eviction, which was dismissed and appeal also dismissed and then the 1st petitioner preferred Second Appeal No.647 of 2010 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, due to that the landlady has no right to evict him. He prays to dismiss the petition. 5. Before the Rent Controller, 3rd respondent/3rd petitioner, who is daughter of 1st petitioner examined as PW.1. Exs.A.1 to A.8 were marked. On behalf of tenant, he himself examined as RW.1 and also examined RW.2, RW.3 and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.18. 6. After hearing both sides, the Rent Controller allowed the petition directing the tenant to vacate from the petition schedule property within two months from the date of the Order and deliver vacant possession to the landlords. 7. Aggrieved by the Orders passed by the Rent Controller, the tenant preferred RCA No.22 of 2013, which also dismissed confirming the Orders passed by the Rent Controller, directing the tenant to vacate the premises within one month and deliver vacant possession to the petitioners 2 to 4. 8. Aggrieved by the Orders of the Courts below, the present revision petition is filed by the tenant stating that the Order and Decree passed by the Appellate Authority is contrary to law and probabilities of the case. He submits that the Rent Control Appellate Tribunal failed to consider that original landlady died during the pendency of rent control case and no amendment is made by the other landlords pleading that they require premises for their own occupation due to that now on that ground, they cannot seek eviction. He submits that the Rent Control Appellate Tribunal failed to consider that original landlady died during the pendency of rent control case and no amendment is made by the other landlords pleading that they require premises for their own occupation due to that now on that ground, they cannot seek eviction. He also submits that the Appellate Authority failed to consider that the landlady has been receiving monthly rents @ Rs.1,800/-per month from the tenant till her death without any protest and from the month of December, 2011, he has been depositing the rent to the credit of RCC No.17 of 2010, which failed to consider by the learned Appellate Judge. He submits that there is no default on his part in payment of rents and the Appellate Authority failed to consider that PW.1 has stated that demised building, which was constructed in the year 1940, deserves to be demolished, since there are number of damages to the building and admittedly no repairs were carried out, which falsifies the contention of the landlady about bonafide requirement of the building and intention of the landlord is only to evict him. He prays to allow the revision petition. 9. I have heard learned counsel representing both parties. 10. Learned counsel for the tenant would submit that as admittedly the original landlady died during pendency of the rent control case petition schedule premises, not required for personal occupation of landlords as daughters of original landlady not filed any amendment petition seeking eviction for their bonafide requirement of the building. He would further submits that even now, the premises has been used for running a printing press and the contention of other side that now building has been used for TV Acting Institute is not correct. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also filed memo before the Registry showing details of payment of rents and copy of photographs to show that still the premises is being used for printing press. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that when a suit filed by the landlords dismissed, which also confirmed by the Appellate Court, they cannot seek eviction, which Judgment operates res judicata. He prays to allow the revision petition. 11. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that when a suit filed by the landlords dismissed, which also confirmed by the Appellate Court, they cannot seek eviction, which Judgment operates res judicata. He prays to allow the revision petition. 11. Learned counsel for the landlords would submit that the memo filed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner itself shows that there is a willful default in payment of rent in violation of Interim Orders passed by this Court, as subsequent events can also be considered while disposing the present Civil Revision Petition. He would further submits that now the premises is being used for Acting Institute and simply because the original landlady died, requirement as on the date of filing of the petition, will not extinguish. He prays to dismiss the revision petition. 12. Now the point for determination is :- “Whether the Order under challenge is sustainable, tenable and whether the same warrants interference of this Court under Section 22 of Rent Control Act?” 13. POINT:- Before going to the merits of the case, it would be beneficial to quote Section 10 and 22 of Rent Control Act, which reads as under:- “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 recognized 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 authorized 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 subsection (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 subsection (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”. “Section 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 as wide as appellate jurisdiction, but wider than jurisdiction under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code. But on the concurrent finding of fact, interference is possible only if findings suffer from any inherent defect or are based on inadmissible or irrelevant materials or are perverse. In exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act though this Court cannot re-appreciate evidence and it can only examine whether any inadmissible or irrelevant material is taken into consideration by the Courts below. 15. The landlords originally sought for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement and willful default. In exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act though this Court cannot re-appreciate evidence and it can only examine whether any inadmissible or irrelevant material is taken into consideration by the Courts below. 15. The landlords originally sought for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement and willful default. It is not in dispute that the original landlady was aged 82 years on the date of filing of the petition and she died during pendency of the petition and thereafter her daughters were added as petitioners, being landlords of petition schedule premises. The learned Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority considered Exs.B.3 to B.7 and observed that the tenant paid rents on some occasions before the end of the month and on some occasions, on the 15th day of the month and thereafter he committed default in payment of rents. It is also observed by the Rent Controller that the original landlady sought eviction being senior citizen, died during pendency of the proceedings, due to that relief of eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement became infructuous. The said observation of Rent Controller, is not sustainable as the Rent Controller shall consider the requirement of the landlady on the date of filing of the petition and if that plea is allowed to be taken by any tenant, it may gives scope for dragging the rent control cases, till the death of original owners, which defeats purpose for which Rent Control Act enacted by the Legislature. This Court in K.Afsarunnisa Begum vs. K.Anasuya, 2006 (3) ALT 740 , wherein it is held that “Rent Control Legislation cannot be said to be a beneficiary Legislation only in favour of tenants, interest of landlord might 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”. 16. 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”. 16. In the present case also, there is no dispute that tenant has paid rents sometimes before the end of the month and on some occasions, on the 15th day of the next month. It is also not in dispute that tenant has not paid rents regularly in the year 2021 and 2022, for which the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that during the pandemic period, the tenant could not run his printing press, due to that rent is not paid regularly. It is no doubt true that the whole world suffered during the pandemic period, including small business units. But the fact remains is that the tenant not approached this Court seeking exemption of payment of rent on that ground. This Court while granting stay of execution proceedings in C.R.P.M.P.No.4508 of 2015, dated 18.09.2015 ordered that stay has been granted, subject to the petitioner paying rent @ Rs.7,000/-per month to the 2nd respondent, which she permitted to receive the same without prejudice to her contentions in the Civil Revision Petition. If the revision petitioner would have suffered during the pandemic period, he ought to have sought permission from the Court, seeking exemption of payment of rent, or seeking time, which he failed to do so. Even otherwise, in the year 2021 the business establishments have been opened and regular physical functioning of Courts also started, but the statement filed by the revision petitioner itself shows that rents for the months of February, 2021 to October, 2021 were not paid regularly and rents pertaining to the months of April, 2021 to October, 2021, a sum of Rs.49,000/-deposited in lumpsum. It is also pertinent to note that the rents for the period from November, 2021 to June, 2022 deposited on 15.07.2022, whereas the rents for the months of August, 2022 to October, 2022 deposited on different dates. Lastly, the rent of Rs.7,000/-deposited on 26.10.2022. It is also pertinent to note that the rents for the period from November, 2021 to June, 2022 deposited on 15.07.2022, whereas the rents for the months of August, 2022 to October, 2022 deposited on different dates. Lastly, the rent of Rs.7,000/-deposited on 26.10.2022. The statement of rent by way of memo filed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner itself shows that the petitioner committed default in payment of rents and when he is pleading that due to pandemic period, he could not pay the rent, it is for him to substantiate his contention, at least he ought to have taken permission from the Court seeking exemption, which he failed to do so, due to that his explanation that he has not paid rents due to pandemic situation, cannot be accepted. It is settled law that subsequent events with regard to default in payment of rent can also be taken into consideration while disposing the rent control case. Though, suit filed by the landlady dismissed, in appeal it was confirmed and the Second Appeal is pending, which suit is filed on different cause of action and the present petition is filed by the landlady basing on tenant committing default in payment of rent subsequent filing of the suit, which rightly allowed by the Courts below, rejecting the contention of the tenant/revision petitioner. 17. This Court did not find any illegality or irregularity in the Orders passed by the Courts below warrants interference of this Court under Section 22 of Rent Control Act. 18. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs. The Revision Petitioner/tenant shall vacate from petition schedule premises on or before 31.03.2023, otherwise, the respondents/landlords can evict him by due process of law. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any, pending shall stand closed. Interim stay if any, granted shall stand vacated.