( 1 ) THE Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 20 of A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 against the orders of the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad (appellate authority) in RA No. 126 of 1993 dated 26-2-1997 confirming the order of the learned Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad in RCNo. 189/1988 dated 31-12-1992.

( 2 ) CERTAIN facts leading to the filing of the Civil Revision Petition are set up herein after. One Smt. Pola Rajamaniamma was the landlord of the premises bearing Municipal No. 4-6-241 to 4-6-244 (Old No. 1883), Subhash Road, Subric Street, Secunderabad. A rental agreement was concluded between the landlady and Mr. Harshavardhan Chokkani, the respondent herein on 23-11-1973 wherein one mulgi in the said premises was let out to Mr. Harshavardhan Chokkani for non-residential purpose. Subsequently, in the year 1987 the owner sold away the property to Mr. Babulal N. Patel and Bhupendra N. Patel duly attorning the tenancy in favour of the vendees. However, Mr. Babulal N. Patel died subsequently. Thereafter, an application in RC No. 189/1988 was filed by Mr. Bhupendra N. Patel and the legal heirs of Babulal N. Patel before the Rent Controller at Secunderabad seeking eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement was wilful default in payment of rent. The matter was contested by the respondent. The learned Rent Controller framed the following issues :" (1) Whether it is the respondent or the firm Brijmohan Chokkani and Sons, who is the tenant of the suit premises? (2) Whether the petitioners who are not in occupation of any other non-residential premises in twin cities require the suit premises for the purpose of a business which the third petitioner bona fide proposes to commence? (3) Whether the tenant has committed defaults in payment of rent for the period from April, 198 7/02/1988 and onwards and if so whether such defaults are wilful?"the evidence was led in before the trial Court and the documents were marked for both the parties. The learned trial Court after considering the matter held that the tenant was the firm and the petition against Mr. Harshavardhan Chokkani was not maintainable. " He also held that there was no bona fide requirement of non-residential premises. On the third issue, the learned Controller held that there was no wilful default. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Rent Controller, the landlords filed Appeal RA No. 128/1993 before the appellate authority the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, at Hyderabad. The learned Appellate Judge concurred with the findings of the lower Court and accordingly dismissed the appeal by a judgment dated 26-2-1997. The present revision has been filed by the landlords against the judgment of the appellate authority confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller.

( 3 ) THE learned senior Counsel Mr. E. Manohar, appearing for the petitioner/landlords submits that the findings recorded by the lower Court as confirmed by the appellate Court of all the three issues are legally untenable and that the Courts below misconstrued the provisions of law and fact, thereby committed errors apparent on the face of records. He submits that the revision is maintainable to check the errors of law and also the jurisdiction. He relies on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in M/s. Bhoolchand v. M/s. Kay Pee Cee Investments, AIR 1991 SC 2053 and Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana, AIR 1993 SC 1616.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent-tenant Mr. Murali Narayan Bung submits that the jurisdiction of the trial Court under Section 20 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control, Act, 1960 (for brief the act ) is very limited. If cannot be treated as an appellate jurisdiction. When, once the finding of the facts are recorded by the Courts below, it is not open for the High Court to interfere with the said findings. He relies on the