JUDGMENT Bandaru Syamsunder, J. - This Civil Revision Petition is filed under section 22 of AP Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (herein after called in short 'Rent Control Act') against the Orders passed in RCA. No. 1 of 2012, dated 18.12.2014 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram 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-Prl., Junior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram in RCC No. 3 of 2009, dated 29.06.2012. 2. The revision petitioner who is tenant of respondent in respect of RCC No. 3 of 2009 case schedule shop room. The respondent/landlord filed petition against the revision petitioner before the Rent Controller under Section 10 (2), 10 (2) (iii) and 10 (3)(a) (iii) of Rent Control Act seeking eviction of the petitioner from the petition schedule property on the ground that willful default, committing act of waste and also on the ground of bonafide requirement. The said petition allowed by the Rent Controller granting two months time to the petitioner to vacate from the petition schedule shop room. 3. Aggrieved by the findings of the Rent Controller, the revision petitioner preferred RCA No. 1 of 2012 before the Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram who re-appreciated the evidence on record, confirmed the orders passed by the Rent Controller. 4. Aggrieved by the orders of appellate Judge, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioner on the ground that orders of the Courts below are contrary to law, weight of documentary evidence. He submits that though there is no willful default on his part in payment of rents, ordering his eviction from the petition schedule property is illegal and arbitrary. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that the respondent/landlord failed to discharge his burden of proof to show that as and when he tendered the rents used to issue receipts. He further submits that, Courts below erred in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner herein has not tendered the rents for the period April, 2008 to July 2009 and in fact the respondent not produced all the counter-foils and used to issue receipts as and when he tendered the rents. He further submits that, Courts below erred in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner herein has not tendered the rents for the period April, 2008 to July 2009 and in fact the respondent not produced all the counter-foils and used to issue receipts as and when he tendered the rents. It is also the contention of the revision petitioner that respondent admitted in his cross examination that he has no idea what type of business to run in the schedule property and courts below erred in ordering his eviction, which is liable to be set aside. 5. I have heard the learned counsel Mr. A.S.K.S. Bhargav representing learned counsel Mr. P. Durga Prasad for the petitioner. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the Rent Controller and also Appellate Judge failed to appreciate the evidence adduced on both sides with regard to sending of rents by the petitioner through Bank drafts and money order, which shows that petitioner not committed any willful default in payment of rents. He submits that the respondent in collusion with his Uncle, demolished the portion of building due to that the petitioner also filed original suit seeking injunction, wherein he obtained interim injunction due to that as a counter-blast, eviction petition has been filed by the respondent. He argued that the respondent failed to prove bonafide requirement as admittedly, he stopped doing business and order of eviction is liable to be set aside. He prays to allow the revision petition. 6. Now the point for determination is:- 'Whether the Order under challenge is sustainable, tenable and whether the same warrants interference by this Court under Section 22 of Rent Control Act?' 7. POINT:- Before going to the merits of the case, it would be beneficial to extract Section 22 of the Rent Control Act, which reads as under:- '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'. 8. Though, 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, this Court cannot re-appreciate evidence and it can only examine whether any inadmissible or irrelevant material is taken into consideration by the Court below. 9. The respondent being landlord sought for eviction of the petitioner on three grounds, i.e., willful default, bonafide requirement and act of waste. As rightly observed by the Courts below that there is no dispute with regard to relationship between the parties, as landlord and tenant and there is no dispute with regard to quantum of rent as Rs. 1,000/- per month on the date of filing of petition before Rent Controller. When once, the landlord establishes the landlord and tenant relationship and proves his title and tenant has not paid rents, the landlord is entitle for eviction. It is also discussed by the Courts below that the petitioner used to pay the rents once in two months, for which the respondent issued receipts, some of them also filed before the Rent Controller, marked as Exs. A13 to A28. Admittedly, the petitioner/tenant not filed any receipts to show that he paid rents to the respondent/landlord from April, 2008 to April, 2009, though, he himself stated in the counter that when the respondent/landlord alleged to have removed tiled roof portion and making preparation to remove the eastern side joint wall of the petition schedule property and the portion of his uncle, he filed suit in OS. No. 157 of 2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Bhimavaram for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction and obtained interim injunction. Which shows that in the year 2007 itself disputes arose between the petitioner and the respondent even then the petitioner not chosen to follow the procedure laid down under Section 8 of Rent Control Act in payment of rents from April, 2008 to April, 2009, which rightly observed by the Courts below. Which shows that in the year 2007 itself disputes arose between the petitioner and the respondent even then the petitioner not chosen to follow the procedure laid down under Section 8 of Rent Control Act in payment of rents from April, 2008 to April, 2009, which rightly observed by the Courts below. The learned Rent Controller as well as Appellate Judge considered precedent law placed before them by both sides and came to conclusion that there is willful default in payment of monthly rents by the petitioner and petition schedule property is also bonafidely required by the respondent for starting his own business. It is not in dispute that the respondent is a businessman due to that the petitioner cannot dictate to the landlord as to how he should conduct his affairs and it is for the landlord to decide how and when he should put his property to use subject to the provisions of the Act. 10. It is not the contention of the petitioner that respondent is also having another shop room and engaged in another avocation to come to conclusion that contention of respondent/landlord that the petition schedule property is bonafidely required by him is false. When the relationship between the petitioner and respondent strained in the year 2007 itself, as petitioner filed civil suit for injunction in respect of the petition schedule property, it is not known what made him to not to invoke Section 8 of the Rent Control Act when really the respondent refused to receive the rents for the period from April, 2008 to April, 2009. 11. The learned Appellate Judge rightly relied on ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohd. Saqawath Alli Bhakshi vs. Shaik Mohd. Iqbal, 2011 (5) ALT 803 , wherein the it is observed that landlord when requires premises to start his business, it is not necessary for him to give all minute details of nature of business and source of capital. 12. In the present case also, when the respondent is admittedly businessman having no other alternative building, certainly he is entitled to seek eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement also. The Courts below have considered the material available on record and also precedent law and came to right conclusion and ordered eviction of the revision petitioner from the petition schedule premises. The Courts below have considered the material available on record and also precedent law and came to right conclusion and ordered eviction of the revision petitioner from the petition schedule premises. The findings of Courts below not suffer from any inherent defect, which is based on material available on record, which warrants no interference by this Court under Section 22 of the Rent Control Act. 13. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs. The revision petitioner shall vacate from the petition schedule property shop room on or before 24.09.2022, otherwise the respondent/landlord can evict the revision petitioner by following due procedure laid down under law. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any., shall stand closed.