JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The unsuccessful tenant filed the present CRP under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to in short as 'Act'.
(2.)The respondent-landlord filed R.C.C. No. 1/96 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-Rent Controller, Srikakulam, seeking eviction of the tenant on two grounds viz., (1) wilful default, and (2) bona fide personal requirement. The Court of first instance by an order dated 21.12.1999. had negatived both the grounds and aggrieved by the same, the landlord had preferred C.M.A. No.5/2000 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge-Appellate Authority, Srikakulam, and the appellate authority by an order dated 4.8.2000 while discussing point No.1 had arrived at a conclusion that the tenant is liable to be evicted on the ground of wilful default. But, however, while discussing point No.2 had negatived the relief of the landlord on the ground of bona fide personal requirement and the tenant aggrieved by the impugned order had preferred the present revision.
(3.)Sri P. Veera Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner-tenant had contended that the findings of the appellate authority at paragraph Nos.7 to 11 dealing with the ground of wilful default are totally unsustainable. The learned Counsel also had pointed out that the evidence of PW1 itself is clear that even relating to the alleged default of January, February, 1996, in fact, money orders had been sent and the conduct of the landlord clearly reveals that the landlord has been evasive for the purpose of creating a ground of wilful default to throw the tenant out of the premises. The learned Counsel also had pointed out the findings recorded by the Court of first instance on the ground of wilful default and also had pointed out the admissions made by PW1 in cross-examination. The learned Counsel further contended that as far as the pleading on the aspect of wilful default is concerned, it is very vague and the learned Counsel had further contended that in the light of the facts and circumstances, the appellate authority should have appreciated that the burden is on the part of the landlord to prove the non-payment of rent and also wilful default and the appellate authority should have appreciated the facts of the case, especially in the light of the cross- examination of PW1. The learned Counsel had further pointed out that as far as bona fide personal requirement is concerned, concurrent findings had been recorded by both the Courts below and apart from this aspect, it was also pointed out that it was conceded by the landlord before the appellate authority that he was not successful in establishing the ground of bona fide personal occupation and hence, the landlord cannot be permitted to urge this ground at the revisional stage.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.