SURISETTY VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. KONDA PRAVEEN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Civil Revision Petitions present almost similar questions of law and facts. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment. The tenants in respect of two separate residential-cum-non-residential premises are the petitioners in these two C.R.'Ps.

(2.) C.R.P.No. 10/2000 is directed against the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, in R.C.A.No. 4 of 1987 and C.R.P. No.11/2000 is directed against the order of the same authority in R.C.A.No. 5 of 1987. The respondent in C.R.P.No. 10/2000 filed R.C.C.No. 54/81 in the Court of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal District Munsiff, Nellore, seeking eviction of the petitioner pleading the grounds of wilful default in payment of rents by the tenant, commission of acts of waste and the bona fide requirement for personal occupation of the schedule premises. The Rent Controller, through orders dated 27-10-1986 dismissed the R.C.C. rejecting all the grounds pleaded by the respondent-landlord. Thereupon, the respondent filed R.C.A.No. 4/87 before the appellate authority. The appeal was dismissed on 26-3-1990.

(3.) Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed C.R.P.No. 2240/90. Through orders dated 5-7-1996, this Court had set aside the order of the appellate authority and remitted the matter back to record a finding on the question on bona fide requirement. After the matter was remitted, both the parties had filed I.As., requesting the Court to permit them to place additional material. After taking into account the additional material as well as the other facts borne out by record, the appellate authority, through its order dated 7-10-1999 directed eviction of the petitioner holding that the premises are required for personal occupation of the respondent and the bona fides in the plea have been established.