KOLLIPARA VENKAT RAO Vs. MOTURI LAKSHMI SULOCHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a civil revision petition (CRP) filed by the petitioner-tenant under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) The petitioner is a tenant of part of the premises bearing D. No. 28/280 of Machilipatnam. The 1st respondent filed RCC No. 36 of 1996 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum- Principal Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, for eviction of the petitioner from the tenanted premises. The 1st respondent pleaded three grounds in the RCC, viz., (1) wilful default (2) bona fide requirement, and (3) sub-lease of the portion of the tenanted premises by the petitioner in favour of one P.China Nageswara Rao (2nd respondent herein). It was the contention of the 1st respondent that the premises was leased to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.550/- per month with effect from 1-10-1993. The petitioner also filed RCC 15 of 1995 under Section 8 of the Act for deposit of the rents in the Court alleging that the 1st respondent was refusing to receive the rents. The said RCC 15 of 1995 was dismissed on 24-6-1996. It was alleged in the RC filed by the 1st respondent that the petitioner fell in arrears of Rs.8,678/- as on 31-7-1996, that the part of the schedule premises was sub-let in favour of the 2nd respondent, that the family of the 1 st respondent is residing in the 1 st floor of the premises, inasmuch as the husband of the 1st respondent who is residing in the first floor is suffering from cough and palpitation and she herself was suffering from rheumatic pains, they need the tenanted premises for their own occupation. Before the Rent Controller, the 1 st respondent was examined as PW1 and Ex.A1 was marked. The petitioner herein was examined as RW1 and Exs.Bl and B2 were marked. Through its order dated 8-6-1998, the Rent Controller dismissed the RCC recording the finding on all the three points against the 1st respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the 1 st respondent filed CMA No.5 of 1998 before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam. The appellate Court, through its judgment dated 24-1-2000, allowed the appeal holding that the petitioner herein committed wilful default. On the questions of bona fide requirement and sub-lease, the appellant Court decided the same against the 1st respondent. The petitioner filed the present CRP against the judgment in the CMA.

(3.) Sri Gangadhar Chamarthy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding of the appellate Court on the question of default is mainly based on subsequent events, and, therefore, it cannot be sustained. He contends that if the rent is to be taken at Rs.300/- per month, there is no default as such.