ORDER: 1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 22 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short “the Act, 1960” ) questioning the order of eviction in R.C.C.No.31 of 2009 passed by the Rent Controller-cum- Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinanda, dated 14.03.2012, which was confirmed in R.C.A.No.11 of 2012 dated 21.02.2014 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2. The Petitioners herein are the tenants. 3. The Respondent No.1/landlord had filed the R.C.C for eviction. Pending disposal of this Revision, the Respondent No.1 died and the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 were brought on record as his legal representatives vide Court order dated 06.08.2019 in CMP.No.336 of 2016 in CRP.No.1143 of 2014. 4. For brevity, the parties will be addressed as landlords and tenants. 5. The brief facts so far: The Respondent No.1 is the owner of the property. The schedule property fell to her share in a partition that was entered between K. Ramarao and others in a compromise decree dated 19.10.2022 in P.L.C.No.45 of 2002 before the Legal Services Authority. The schedule shop was leased to the tenants/Petitioners on a monthly rent of Rs.600/- payable by 1 st of every succeeding month. The tenants/Petitioners were well aware of the fact that the schedule shop fell to the share of the landlord/Respondent No.1 and she is the owner of the property. In spite of having full knowledge, the tenants/Petitioners were not paying rents from November, 2002 and thus committed default in payment of rents. 6. Therefore, the R.C.C was filed seeking eviction on the ground of willful default. The schedule property is a shop situated in the Market Street of Kakinada town. The tenants/Petitioners filed their counter denying knowledge the of schedule property being allotted to the landlord/Respondent No.1 under a compromise decree in P.L.C.No.45 of 2002, dated 19.10.2022. The tenants/Petitioners pleaded that they were not aware of this fact at any time. The tenants/Petitioners contended that they have been regular in payment of rent and there is no default at any point of time. The tenants/Petitioners stated that they used to send the rent by way of money order to their landlord/Respondent No.1 every month without any default and all the money order receipts were available with the tenants/Petitioners to substantiate their claim. 7. The tenants/Petitioners stated that they used to send the rent by way of money order to their landlord/Respondent No.1 every month without any default and all the money order receipts were available with the tenants/Petitioners to substantiate their claim. 7. It was their further plea that the schedule property was never mutated in the name of the landlord/Respondent No.1 pursuant to the compromise decree and therefore the tenants/Petitioners said to have committed any default. In the trial Court, the landlord/Respondent No.1 was examined as P.W.1. On behalf of the tenants/Petitioners, one among them i.e. Pampana Venkata Ramana was examined as R.W.1. 8. On behalf of the landlord/Respondent No.1 only Ex.A.1 was marked in evidence while on behalf of the tenants/Petitioners, Exs.B.1 to B.4 were marked. Ex.B.1 is Bunch of bank counterfoils (totalling to 6), Ex.B.2 is Bunch of M.O receipts (totalling to 86), Ex.B.3 is Bunch of M.O acknowledgments (totalling to 108) and Ex.B.4 is Bunch of postal receipts along with postal acknowledgments (totalling to 110). 9. The trial Court allowed the petition for eviction and granted three months time to the tenants/Petitioners to vacate the schedule premises. The appeal filed thereon stood dismissed. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 10. Heard Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri K.V. Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the Respondents. 11. The contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioners/tenants is that the tenants were never made aware of the ownership in favour of the present landlords and in the absence of any notice intimating attornment of tenancy, the tenants cannot be said to have defaulted in payment of rent. It was further pleaded that the documents filed by the tenants showing the sincerity of the tenants in sending money orders every month all through the period is apparent of the tenants cannot said to be ‘willful defaulters’. 12. The further plea was that the landlords did not even come into the witness box to enable the tenants to prove their case and therefore an adverse inference should be drawn against the landlords. 13. The counsel for the Respondents/landlords contended that the default stood established by categorical findings of two fact finding Courts and in the absence of any perversity in the findings, it is not open to interfere with Section 22 of the Act, 1960. 13. The counsel for the Respondents/landlords contended that the default stood established by categorical findings of two fact finding Courts and in the absence of any perversity in the findings, it is not open to interfere with Section 22 of the Act, 1960. All the contentions on facts were analysed by both the Courts below and a detailed finding of default was rendered by both the Courts, which are sound and do not warrant any interference. 14. One issue which was not urged in the Courts below is the amendment to section 10C of the Act, which was introduced as per the Amendment Act of 17 of 2005. As per this amendment, Sections 10A, 10B and 10C were introduced to the Act. The Section 10C provides for immediate possession of the tenanted premises for a certain class of individuals as a one time measure as provided under Explanation II. Considering the nature of amendment, this Court thought it appropriate to frame an issue on that aspect also. After hearing the Respective counsels, this Court is of the opinion that the following points fall for consideration:- a) Whether the orders of the Courts below without referring to amended Section 10C of the Act can be sustained? b) Whether the findings of the Courts below on the aspect of willful default can be sustained? 15. Point No. (a) : The Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 was amended vide Act No.17 of 2005. As per the amendment, Sections 10A, 10B and 10C were introduced among other provisions. The provision that is relevant for the purpose of this case is Section 10-C and the same reads as under:- “10C. Right to recover immediate possessi on of premises to accrue to a widow: (1) Where the landlord is: (a) a widow and the premises let out by her, or by her husband; (b)a handicapped person and the premises let out by him; (c) a person who is of the age of sixty-five years or more and the premises let out by him; or her; is required for use by him or her or for his or her family or for any one ordinarily living with him or her as the case may be for use he or she may apply to the Court for recovery of immediate possession of such premises. (2) Where the landlord referred to in sub-section (1) has let out more than one premises, it shall be open to him to make an application under that sub-section in respect of any one residential and one non-residential premises each chosen by him. Explanation I: For the purpose of this section, "handicapped person" shall mean a person who is as if being an assessee entitled for the time being to the benefits of deduction under Section 80-U of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Central Act 48 of 1961). Explanation II: The right to recover possession under this section shall be exercisable only once in respect of each for residential and for non-residential use.]” 16. As per the above provision i.e. Section 10 C(1)(a) , a person aged 65 years or more seeks for recovery of possession for self or for members of his family, a right is provided for immediate possession. The Section 10 C(2) also makes it clear that, it is the prerogative of the landlord to decide as to which of the premises is required and the suitability/choice of the landlord is not open to be questioned by the tenant. 17. In this case, the Petitioner was aged about 68 years at the time of filing of R.C.C. Though Section 10C (1)(a) enables the widowed landlord to apply for immediate possession, this Court is of the opinion that no separate application is required to be filed and very filing of a Rent Control Case for eviction on account of willful default obligates the Rent Controller to take steps for immediate possession of the schedule premises. The Rent Controller was bound to take steps as per statutory mandate. 18. In this case, the above provision was not noted by the Courts below. Though the Courts below examined the case from the conventional aspects and had decided on the aspect of willful default, in the opinion of this court, the landlord is entitled for possession on this ground also. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the landlords/Respondents. 19. Point No.(b) : As regards the issue of willful default, the curious facet of this case is that the address of the landlord as well as tenants is the same. The address of the landlord is shown the same even in the Ex.A.1 Legal Services Award. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the landlords/Respondents. 19. Point No.(b) : As regards the issue of willful default, the curious facet of this case is that the address of the landlord as well as tenants is the same. The address of the landlord is shown the same even in the Ex.A.1 Legal Services Award. The claim of the tenants from the year 2002 onwards till 2009 they were not aware that the schedule property fell to the share of the landlord does not sound right as the tenant in his cross examination had admitted to the knowledge of partition and that the respective sharers were collecting rents from their tenants. The relevant portion of the cross examination is extracted below:- “I am doing business in the petition schedule shop. My father had taken on lease the petition schedule property originally. It is true that the properties are partitioned and each owner is collecting rents .” 20. Apart from that, the tenant in his cross examination acknowledged that K. Venkata Ramanamma, who was allotted shop No.1 under Ex.A.1 Award had sold the shop to a third party by name Reddy Anaparthi. The above admissions of the tenant show that he has knowledge of the partition specifically with regard to the property allotted to each of the sharers. 21. This Court is of the opinion that the reasoning given by the Courts below cannot be said to be perverse and therefore this Court is not inclined to agree with the contention of the Petitioners/tenants. 22. Therefore, the findings of the Courts below on this aspect cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, the Point No.(b) is held in favour of the landlords/Respondents. 23. In view of the findings rendered above, the orders of the Courts below are upheld and the tenants are liable for eviction. Considering that the tenants were in occupation of the scheduled premises, this Court deems it fit to grant six (6) months time from today to vacate the scheduled premises. 24. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.