JUDGMENT
B. Prakash Rao, J.
1. The tenants are the petitioners, who seek to challenge the orders of eviction in R.C.C. No. 60 of 1973 dated 29-6-1987 on the file of the Rent Controller, Vizianagaram, as confirmed in R.C.A. No. 12 of 1987 dated 20-12-1996 on the file of the Appellate Authority-cum-Subordinate Judge, Vizianagaram.
2. The respondent-landlord filed a petition under Section 10(2)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 against the petitioners on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents from 1-6-1971 to 1-12-1972. It was alleged that the premises, a non-residential one, was let out to late Ram Singh, the father of the petitioners at Rs. 25/- per month and the same was enhanced intermittently and now at Rs. 66-12 ps and Rs. 45/-. The landlord had to file a suit in O.S. No. 54 of 1973 for recovery of arrears.
3. The tenants contested the case on the ground that in view of the civil suit already filed, this application is not maintainable and in view of the orders of this court in C.R.P. No. 4599 of 1978 and the deposit made, there is no default.
4. After regular enquiry, the Rent Controller held that the tenants have committed wilful default and thus liable for eviction. These orders are confirmed in appeal.
5. The counsel on both sides were heard.
6. On the submissions made and on a perusal of the record, it reveals that the father of the tenants was the tenant earlier and after his death, the petitioners herein continued to occupy. The amount agreed since inception, though there is dispute as to whether the said amount is towards licence fee or rent, is being enhanced from time to time. The landlord had filed a suit in O.S. No. 54 of 1973 for recovery of arrears of rents and licence fee for the period from 1-6-1971 to 1-12-1972 and the same was decreed and not appealed against. In this eviction case, on an application filed under Section 11 (4) of the Rent Act in I.A. No. 322 of 1974, the tenants were directed to pay the amounts as per the said decree in O.S. No. 54 of 1973 and continue to pay. The tenants appeal in R.C.A. No. 29 of 1975 was dismissed. However, this court allowed the revision in C.R.P. No. 4599 of 1978 holding that the tenants have to pay rents but not the licence fee. Therefore, the contention is that there is excess payment.
7. Admittedly, the tenants had paid the arrears in pursuance of court orders and not regularly. Even if, as a fact, there exist no arrears on the date of eviction petition, it cannot be said that there was no default. Further, in the circumstances, whereby the tenants have to be proceeded against for arrears and there being no regular payments, as and when due, it cannot be said that there is no wilfulness. It is a clear indifference on their part from discharging the obligation as tenants. The courts below on an appreciation of the entire evidence and material on record, have found that there is wilful default. The findings of both the courts below are supported by reasons and valid basis. In view of such concurrent findings, I do not find any error therein and the same are binding on this court. Further, this court in exercise of its revisional powers cannot re-appreciate the evidence.
8. Accordingly, I do not find any merits in the revision, hence dismissed. The petitioners shall vacate the premises within a period of three months from today. No costs.