1. These two civil revision petitions are filed under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (lease, rent and eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter in short referred to as “Act” for the purpose of convenience) by the tenants and the landlords respectively as against the common order made in R.A.No.202 of 2002 and R.A. No.219 of 2002 being aggrieved of the portions of the order and the relief made in R.C.No.474 of 1998 on the file of IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad.

2. In view of the commonality involved in both these civil revision petitions and in the light of the fact that both the R.As. aforesaid also had been disposed of by a common order by the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, the Appellate Authority, these civil revision petitions are being disposed of by a common order by this Court.

3. Heard Smt. Manjiri S Ganu, learned counsel representing tenant and Sri Hanumanthu Rajagopal Rao, learned counsel representing landlords.

4. The tenants filed C.R.P.No.6422 of 2006 and the landlords filed C.R.P. No.2113 of 2008 being aggrieved of the common order made in R.A. No.219 2002 and R.A. No.202 of 2002 which were preferred as against the order made in R.C. No.474 of 1998 on the file of IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad.

5. The landlords filed the said R.C. No.474 of 1998 on the ground of wilful default, on the ground of bona fide personal requirement and on the ground of securing alternative accommodation. The learned Rent Controller recorded the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, R.W.1, marked Exs.A-1 to R-29 and Exs.B-1 to B-43 and came to the conclusion that there is no wilful default in payment of rents and the tenants had not secured alternative accommodation and the tenant did not claim permanent tenancy, but however, ordered eviction on bona fide personal requirement. Aggrieved by the same, the tenants preferred R.A. No.202 of 2002 and the landlords preferred R.A. No.219 of 2002 and the Appellate Authority after formulating the points for consideration at para 20 recorded reasons and came to the conclusion that the ground of wilful default had been established. The Appellate Authority also referred to the decision in Satyanarayana v. Moizuddin Khan (2005 (4) ALD 249) and recorded further findings at paras 33, 34 and 35 and confirmed the said finding of the learned Rent Controller. The Appellate Authority also came to the conclusion that the tenants did not set up any permanent tenancy and, hence, declined to grant eviction on that ground confirming the finding of the learned Rent Controller. However, while answering point No.4 elaborate reasons had been recorded at paras 37 to 49 and came to the conclusion that ordering eviction on the ground of bona fide personal requirement cannot be sustained and accordingly reversed the said finding, but however, ultimately ordered eviction on the ground of wilful default. Aggrieved by the respective portions, the present civil revision petitions had been filed by the tenants and the landlords as already aforesaid.

6. Smt. Manjiri S Ganu, the learned counsel representing tenants had explained the respective stands taken by the parties and the findings recorded and would maintain that the Appellate Authority failed to notice that the landlords were receiving rents from the tenants up to October 1997 and on 17.10.1997 the original tenant i.e., the father of the present tenants died and the rents tendered thereafter from November 1997 onwards were refused in a mala fide way by the landlords compelling them to file R.C.No.73 of 1998 in which Ex.B-1 order was made. The learned counsel also would maintain that the Appellate Authority failed to note that during the pendency of the rent case, an interim permission was given under which the tenants deposited all rents which is evident from ledger extract Ex.B-42 and thus the tenants have been depositing the rents into bank account. The learned counsel also explained the sequence of events. The couns