GULB CHAND Vs. D NAGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Vilas V. Afzulpurkar and Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, the learned Counsel representing the respective parties.

(2.) These revisions are filed by the tenants relating to the respective premises, the landlords being common in all these matters. The ground of wilful default and the period of the alleged wilful default and all other facts in all these matters except the tenants being different, are all almost one and the same. CRP No.1618/2001 is filed by the unsuccessful tenant as against a reversing judgment in RA No. 178/97 on the file of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad which was filed by the landlords aggrieved by the dismissal of the eviction petition in R.C.No.153/94 on the file of III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, Likewise, C.R.P.No.1620/2001 was filed by another tenant aggrieved by reversing order made in R.A.No. 179/97 on the file of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad reversing the order made in R.C.No.152/94 on the file of III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. The other Revision C.R.P. No. 1632/2001 was preferred by yet another tenant as against an order in R.A. No.177/97 on the file of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad reversing an order of dismissing eviction petition in R.C. No. 151/94 on the file of III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. Except for certain minor variations, the facts in all these matters are almost the same.

(3.) For the purpose of convenience, the respondents in these civil revision petitions are referred to as landlords and the revision petitioners are referred to as tenants, hereinafter.