( 1 ) THESE two revision petitions arising out of rent control proceedings are preferred by the tenants occupying two different portions of a building located in Visakhapatnam town. The respondent-landlord filed h. R. C. Nos. 33, 34 and 35/68 against the tenants occupying three different portions of the hoiue bearing No. 2615180 on the grounds ol wilful default in payment of rent and bona fide tequirement of the landlord for personal occupation for doing business. The learnet, Rent Controller negatived both the grounds and dismissed the eviction petitions. The lower Appellate Court, however, allowed the appeals and ordered eviction. In one of the three cases, the tenant has not preferred a revision while the tenants occupying two portions have preferred these two revision petitions.

( 2 ) WHEN these revision petitions came up before our learned brother Jagannadha Rao, J. , he referred the matter to a Division Bench expressing the view that the decision of P. Rama Rao, J. in Arjundas vs. Madan Lai Madil was in a way overruled by a Division Bench of this court in C. R. P. Nos. 7721 and 7784 of 1979, but the ruling of the Supreme court in Shri Balaganesan Metals vs. M. N. Shanmugham Chetty supports the view taken by P. Rama Rao, J. , in Arjundas Case (supra ).

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the Petitioners argued that eviction is sought in respect of a building bearing Municipal No. 79 in Visakhapatnam; that according to the landlord his father has let out three portions of that building to three different tenants that those portions were allotted door nos. 178, 179 and 180; that the portions were let out to the petitioners in the two C. R. Ps. for residential purpose; that the landlord is carrying on business in a rented premises and that he is not entitled to seek eviction of the tenants from the residential premises for non-residential purpose.

( 4 ) PRIOR to filing H. R. C. Nos. 33 and 35 of 1968 out of which these revision petitions arise, the landlord filed eviction petitions in H. R. C. Nos. 59/67 and 64/87 which were thrown out for want of notice under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. Subsequently in view of the decision of (he Supreme Court that notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act is not required to seek eviction of a tenant under the provisions of the Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act"), the landlord had to again file H. R. C. Nos. 33 and 35 of 1968. The learned rent Controller holding that there is no wilful default in payment of rent by tenants and that the requirement of the landlord for the suit premises is not bona fide, dismissed both the eviction petitions. Aggrieved by the said decision, the landlord preferred R. A. Nos. 12 and 13 of 1975. The learned Subordiante Judge on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the case and after an elaborate discussion of the various contentions put forth by the parties arrived at the findings of fact that the suit premises were let out for non-residential purpose only and that the delayed and irregular payments amount to wilful default. The learned subordinate Judge held that in R. C, A. No. 12/75 Exs. B-18 to B-21 show that the tenant paid rent to the landlord for the months of October, 1965 to january, 1966 only on 30-3-1966; that Exs. B-22 and B-23 show that the rents for the months of February and March, 1966 were paid on 6-7-1966; that Exs. B-24 and B-25 show that the tenant paid rent for the months of april, 1966 and May, 1966 on 22-7-1966 and that there is no explanation offered by the tenant as to why he was paying those rents irregularly with a delay of 3 to 8 months. The learned Appellate Judge observed that the tenant in R. C. A. No. 13/75 did not file any receipts obtained from the landlord showing as to when the rents for November, 1976 and subsequent months were actually paid to the landlord though R. W. and7 admitted that receipts were obtained by paying rents. He relied upon Ex.