( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31-1-1992 passed in R. C. A. No. 108/ 82 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Vijayawada reversing the order of the Rent Controller in R. C. C. No. 31/81.

( 2 ) THE facts in brief are as follows: The respondents (sic. petitioners) 4 and 5 herein and their brother late rajakumar Sharma whose legal representatives are petitioners, 1,2 and 3 (for the sake of convenience called as land-lords hereafter) filed the eviction petition R. C. C. No. 31/81 under Section 10 (2) (i) and Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) (a) of a. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (Act 15 of 1960) (hereinafter called as the act ) on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent and also on the ground of requiring the building for starting the existing business carried on by them in the non-residential premises let out to the respondent herein (referred as tenant ). The tenant resisted that application 5 by filing a counter denying the allegations made in the petition. During the trial, the 5th petitioner herein was examined as P. W. I and Exs. A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of the tenant, its proprietor by name J. Koteswara Rao was examined as R. W. I and Exs. B-1 to B-8 were marked. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed before him, the learned Rent 10 Controller held that there was no wilful default in payment of rent and that the land-lords require the premises bona fide for their use and occupation and therefore, allowed the eviction petition and ordered for eviction of the tenant from that premises granting 2 months time. Aggrieved of that order, the tenant preferred the appeal R. C. A. No. 108/ 82 to the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada. 45 The learned Subordinate Judge by his judgment dated 31-1-1992 confirmed the finding of the Rent Controller that there was no wilful default in payment of rent. But, on a consideration of subsequent events that were brought to his notice by the appellant-tenant through the petition LA. No. 5330/89 and la. No. 5639/89 that the land-lords came into possession of a bigger non- residential portion situated by the side of the tenanted schedule building after getting evicted its tenant who was carrying on cloth business in it and that the land-lords have started carrying on their existing business in sports goods under the name and style of "sharma s sports" and relying on the Full Bench decision in "vidhyavathi Bai vs. Shankarlal" (1987 (2) ALT 550 = 1987 (2) APLJ 365) held that the land-lord who had come into occupation of a non-residential building is not entitled to for eviction of another non-residential building occupied by the tenant and consequently, set aside the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller and allowed the appeal. As against that judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, the land-lords have come up with this revision petition.

( 3 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioners herein are the owners of non-residential premises bearing D. No. Old 28-1-29 (New 28-1-32) consisting of two rooms situated within the municipal limits of Vijayawada.- It forms part of a big building. The petitioners became the owners of that building having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 28-11-1980 from the previous owners. There are some other tenants with respect to the other portions of that building. The respondent herein is the tenant of the petition-schedule premises bearing No. 28-1-29. The land-lords sought eviction of the tenant from the said premises on the ground of wilful default and on the ground of bona fide requirement. Both the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority held that there was no wilful default in paying the rent on the part of the tenant. It is a question of fact. On an appraisal of the evidence adduced by both the parties, both the Courts below gave a finding that there was no wilful default on the part of the tenant. Therefore, it