VIJAYA LAKSHMI AGENCIES Vs. VASIREDDY PRABHAKARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful tenant aggrieved by a reversing order had preferred the present Civil Revision Petition under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act in short for the purpose of convenience. Originally, the land lords Dr. Vasireddy Prabhakar Rao and Dr. Vasireddy Malathi filed the eviction petition R.C.C.No. 23/87 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum- Principal District Munsif, Rajahmundry and during the pendency of the R.C.C. proceedings, the 2nd petitioner in the R.C.C. Dr. Vasireddy Malathi died and that her legal representative Vasireddy Satya Surya Srinivas was brought on record as petitioner No.3 in R.C.C.No.23/87 and the said parties are respondents 1 and 2 in the present Civil Revision Petition. For the purpose of convenience, the revision petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition will be referred to as the tenant and the respondents in the Civil Revision Petition will be referred to as landlords hereinafter.

(2.) The R.C.C. was filed on the ground of wilful default and also on the ground of bona fide personal requirement and the Court of first instance had dismissed the said R.C.C. negativing both the grounds. Aggrieved by the same, the landlord preferred R.C.A.No.53/96 on the file of the appellate authority-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, who had reversed the order dated 4.9.2000 on the ground of wilful default only but confirming as far as the ground of bona fide personal requirement is concerned and the tenant, aggrieved by the order of eviction made by the appellate authority, had preferred the present Civil Revision Petition. The pleadings of the respective parties are as follows:

(3.) On the strength of these pleadings, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the landlords and Exs.Al to A10 and Xi and X2 also were marked. On behalf of the tenant, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs. B1 to B10 were marked. The Court of first instance, as already stated supra, had negatived both the grounds and the landlords, aggrieved by the same, had preferred an appeal and the appellate authority in R.C.A.No.53/96 on the file of the appellate authority-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry had framed the following points for consideration: