HARRY ALIAS HARRY FRANCIS Vs. S NARAYAN RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the tenant against whom Rent Control proceedings were initiated in RC No.295 of 1989 before the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad by the respondent herein on three grounds viz., default in payment of rents, the petitioner has ceased to occupy the premises and the premises is required by the respondent-landlord for additional accommodation. The petitioner- tenant contested the proceedings. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence the Principal Rent Controller was of the view that the landlord had successfully proved his case on all the three grounds and ordered eviction of the petitioner herein by order dated 9.9.1996. The petitioner herein carried the matter before Addl. Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad by way of R.A.No.272 of 1996 challenging the order of eviction made by the Rent Controller. The lower Appellate Authority having regard to the finding given by the Rent Controller also came to the conclusion that the appellant-tenant has no case and dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 20.7.2001, against which the present revision is filed.

(2.) Heard Sri Somakonda Reddy, Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chandrashekhar Reddy, Counsel for the respondent.

(3.) The Counsel for the petitioner contended that some civil disputes are pending between the petitioner and the respondent, which culminated into filing of regular suits and appeals are also pending before the Addl. Chief Judge and the issue regarding the relationship between the parties could not have been decided by the Rent Controller and the lower Appellate Authority in the light of the various civil disputes pending between the parties. In view of the concurrent finding given by both the Courts below on question of fact and law, it is difficult for me to appreciate the contention made on behalf of the petitioner on a different aspect that some civil disputes are pending between the parties. Since there is a categorical finding given by both the Courts below that the petitioner-tenant has ceased to occupy the demised premises, even granting time to the petitioner-tenant for vacating the premises does not arise. On these grounds, I find no justifying reasons to interfere with the order impugned.