B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.

1. The revision has arisen out of rent controller-appellate authority’s conformation order of rent controller for eviction of the tenant on the ground of willful default. The revision petitioner is thus the unsuccessful tenant as respondent in RCC No. 46 of 2006.

2. It is the second round of litigation, after the earlier civil suit filed after quit notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, ‘TP Act’) was ended in dismissal mainly on the point of jurisdiction holding the relationship of the landlord and the tenant not covered by the TP Act but governed by the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, ‘Rent Control Act’).

3. It was therefrom under Section 10 of the Rent Control Act was filed. No doubt from perusal of the prayer in the rent control case it did not specifically state as to for bona-fide requirement or from willful default the eviction was sought, however reading of the eviction petition with prayer it is clear that solely on the ground of willful default the eviction petition was filed. The tenant contended in opposing the eviction petition that there is no willful default and the rent was paying and accepting.

4. In fact, after the evidence covered by the petitioner as P.W.1 and the respondent as R.W.1 with reference to Exs.A.1 to A.5 and Exs.B.1 to B.5 respectively, the Rent Controller, vide order dated 23.03.2009, allowed the RCC with costs, directing the respondent/tenant to vacate the schedule premises within two months by putting landlord into possession, on said ground of willful default.

5. The unsuccessful respondent/ tenant maintained the RCA No.6 of 2009 that was also dismissed, confirming the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller with costs by appeal order dated 11.08.2011.

6. It is impugning the concurrent finding, the unsuccessful respondent/ tenant before the two forums supra, maintained the present revision.

7. The main contention of the tenant is that the landlord after issuing notice allegedly under Section 106 TP Act and went unsuccessful in the civil suit for want of jurisdiction inherently having maintained the RCC for eviction on the ground of willful default, however before filing the eviction petition accepted the rent and thereby there is a waiver, needless according to the revision petitioner even before filing of the civil suit pursuant to the notice and reply.

8. The counsel for the revision petitioner placed reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in Dakaya Alias Dakaiah v. Anjani (1996 AIR (SC) 383) mainly at paragraphs 5 and 7 of the Judgment, wherein it was held referring to earlier expression in S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman, (1985) 2 SCR 643) in saying Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 is pari materia to Section 10 of A.P. Rent Act, but for the difference to claim as willful default, two months’ notice shall be given despite failed to pay rent and in this case even there is no such rider and therefore from the said beneficial purpose of the Rent Control Act to protect eviction of the tenant, if the payment has been made before institution of the suit, the cause of action for instituting of the suit will vanish, that as the tenant already sent the Bank Draft covering the entire default, there was also no occasion for the Rent Controller to direct deposit of arrears within the stipulated period and thereby held the High Court and the Rent Controller went wrong in not appreciating this fact in ordering eviction on the ground of willful default

9. A reading of paragraph 7 of Dakaiah supra is very clear in saying further that the tenant- appellant is carrying on business in the disputed premises and the order of eviction cannot but affect his interest seriously and it appears to us that whether willful or not, the fact remains that the tenant committed default in payment of rent for several months for w