PUSIBAI RATHI Vs. RAGHAVENDRA RICE DEPOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. Heard both the counsel.

(2.) This matter arises under the provisions of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the "rent Act". The appellant herein is the landlady and she let out the suit premises to one Gaddam Subba Rao, respondent 2, the father of Gaddam Raghavendra Rao, respondent I, for non-residential purposes. The appellant filed a petition for eviction under S. 10 (2x0, 10 (2 (iii) and 10 (2 (v) of the Rent Act on the ground of wilful default and also on the ground that respondent 2 committed acts of waste. Respondent 2, Gaddam Subba Rao contested the petition and the plea taken by him was that he did not continue the tenancy as he had already vacated the premises in March 1983 and that there are no arrears till the time of vacating the premises. He further pleaded that after delivery of the premises to the landlady, his son Gaddam Raghavendra Rao, respondent 1 has been recognised as a tenant who is trading under the name and style of Sri Raghavendra Rice Depot and that he has been paying the rent to the appellant and that the appellant having collected the rent from Gaddam Raghavendra Rao yet filed this eviction petition ingeniously. The learned Rent Controller held that Gaddam Subba Rao was the tenant and that he had taken a false plea regarding surrendering of the premises in 1983 with a view to get over the ground of wilful default and that both father and son were in collusion in changing the name of the proprietor in the signboard of Sri Raghavendra Rice Depot. He accordingly held that there was relationship of landlady and tenant between the appellant and Gaddam Subba Rao who committed wilful default and ordered eviction of both the respondents. The learned Rent Controller also held that Gaddam Raghavendra Rao, respondent 1 herein was only a nominee of respondent 2, a subtenant, and that both of them should deliver the possession of the schedule premises to the landlady after vacating the same.

(3.) However, during the pendency of the eviction proceedings, Gaddam Raghavendra Rao filed an application under Order I Rule 10 and Section 151 Civil Procedure Code to implead him as the respondent. That was rejected on 13/02/1987 by the Rent Controller holding that he being the son could be examined during the enquiry in the main eviction petition to establish that respondent 2, Gaddam Subba Rao was not the tenant. Respondent 1 preferred an appeal to the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada but that wasrejected. He further preferred a revision petition before the High court which was also rejected.