P ESHWARAIAH Vs. P KISTAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is filed by the unsuccessful tenant in R.A. No.296/97 on the file of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad, reversing the order made in R.C.No.256/95 on the file of II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad.

(2.) The facts in nutshell are that the respondent is the owner and the landlord of petition schedule premises and the revision petitioner is the tenant. The rent is Rs.550/- per month exclusive of electricity charges and the tenancy is oral and the respondent- landlord requires the premises for his second son for running job-work center in typewriting and they are not in possession of any other mulgi and by way of an amendment the requirement of the 3rd and the 4th sons also was pleaded by the respondent-landlord. The revision petitioner- tenant admitted the tenancy, but denied the tenancy being oral and had stated that he is not aware whether the respondent- landlord is the exclusive owner of the schedule premises. The revision petitioner further had stated in his counter that originally the father of the respondent let- out the schedule premises to him in 1951 and he has been in possession of the premises as tenant and the rental receipts issued also go to show that Muralidhar, Yadaiah, Mahesh, Madhavaiah and the respondent are the signatories. The revision petitioner also had specifically denied about the bona fide personal requirement of the premises by the respondent. In the light of the respective pleadings, the Rent Controller had framed the following points:

(3.) Smt. Jayasree Sarathy, the learned Counsel while making her submissions on behalf of the revision petitioner-tenant had submitted that the premises itself is a very small premises i.e., 10' x 10' sq.ft and since a specific stand was taken that the respondent is not the exclusive owner of the petition schedule premises and inasmuch as he had not established that he is the exclusive owner, the learned Rent Controller had recorded a specific finding in this regard and this aspect of the matter was left untouched by the appellate authority. The learned Counsel had strenuously contended that framing of points for consideration by the appellate authority even in a rent control proceeding is mandatory and in the absence of framing such points or non- framing of important points, which had been answered by the Court of first instance, will definitely vitiate the judgment and the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. The learned Counsel also submitted that it is no doubt true that there is no specific denial of landlord and tenant relationship, but the stand taken by the revision petitioner is clear that he was inducted into possession by the father of the respondent and at any rate the respondent is not the exclusive owner of the petition schedule premises. In the light of this stand, the appellate authority ought to have framed a point on this aspect also and should have answered on the aspect of maintainability of the eviction petition and for reasons best known, the appellate authority had not adverted to this aspect of the matter at all. The learned Counsel also had contended that Ex.P-4 notice was issued by the respondent, but even without waiting for the reply by the revision petitioner, he had rushed to the Court on the ground of personal requirement. The learned Counsel also had further contended that in view of Order 41, Rule 31 C.P.C. the appellate authority should have considered the first point decided by the Rent Controller and total omission of consideration of Point No.1 by the appellate authority is bad in law.