LAWS(APH)-2001-10-125

PANDULURU RAJESWARI Vs. N V MADHUSUDANA GUPTA

Decided On October 19, 2001
PANDULURU RAJESWARI Appellant
V/S
N.V.MADHUSUDANA GUPTA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act IV of 1960 (hereafter referred as 'the Act' for brevity) is preferred against the order dated 18.12.1997 of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge-cum-Rent Control Appellate Tribunal, Tirupati in C.M.A. No.4 of 1992.

(2.) The landlady is the petitioner. She is the owner of the premises bearing Door No.113, Theerthakatta street, Tirupati. She had let out part of the said premises identified as Door No.11-D in favour of the respondent from 2.11.1981 onwards for non-residential purpose. Initially the rent was Rs.150/- and from May 1985 onwards it has been enhanced to Rs.250/-. It was not in dispute that the respondent had deposited an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards advance.

(3.) The petitioner filed RCC No. 15 of 1990 in the Court of Principal District Munsif-cum-Rent Controller, Tirupati under Sections 10(2X0 and 10(3) (c) of the Act seeking eviction of the respondent on the grounds that a) the respondent committed wilful default in payment of rents and b) the premises are needed for additional accommodation of the petitioner. On behalf of the petitioner, PW-1 was examined and Ex.A-1 was marked. Whereas, on behalf of the respondent, RW-1 was examined and Exs. B-1 to B-5 were marked. The Rent Controller dismissed the RCC through the order dated 20.10.1999 holding that the petitioner failed to establish both the grounds pleaded by her. Then the petitioner filed appeal - C.M.A. No. 4 of 1992 - before the appellate Tribunal. The appellate Tribunal though recorded a finding that there was wilful default on the part of the respondent herein, refused the relief on the ground that there was an amount of Rs.5,000/- in deposit with the petitioner and if that amount is adjusted, there will not be any default. The finding of the Rent Controller as to the bona fide requirement was also affirmed by the appellate Tribunal through its order dated 28.10.1992. Hence this revision.