BANGARU CHETTY V Vs. A GOVINDA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application is directed against a judgment dated 6th October, 1997 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the tenant-respondent aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed in R.C.C. 15 of 1992 by the District Munsif-cum-Rent Controller, Chittoor, was reversed. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The petitioner herein is the landlord. He filed a suit for eviction of the respondent-tenant under Section 10 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as 'the Act') inter alia on the grounds of default, acts of waste and bona fide requirement.

(2.) The Rent Controller, on the basis of the materials placed before him, arrived at a finding of fact to the effect that the ground of personal requirement is not tenable. He, however, decreed the suit on the ground that the respondent-tenant herein willfully committed default in payment of rent for the period from February 1991 to January 1992 as also on the ground that he was guilty of commission of acts of waste. The said findings are recorded in paras 21 and 22 of the said judgment. The learned Court of appeal below, however, found fault with the said finding of fact and allowed the appeal. It appears that the Rent Controller, as regards the question of default inter alia held:

(3.) He, however, could not give any positive finding as regards the payment or non-payment of rent for the period from February, 1991 to June, 1992. Before the Rent Controller, a plea was raised on behalf of the respondent-tenant that a sum of Rs.5,000/- had been advanced to the petitioner-landlord. The Rent Controller negatived the said plea on the basis of the materials on record. As regards the purported acts of waste on the part of the respondent-tenant, relying on the basis of evidence as adduced by the parties as also the reports of the Advocate-Commissioner which were marked as Exs.C-1 to C-4, he held that the tenant-appellant was guilty of commission of acts of waste.