M VEERESDHAM Vs. L H GOPALAKRISHNA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant of a non-residential premises belonging to the respondent, is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. The respondent filed RC. No. 2/91 before the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad, seeking eviction of the petitioner under Section 10 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). In the petition, it was alleged that the petitioner committed wilful default of payment of rents and that the premises is required for personal occupation of the respondent. The petitioner resisted the petition and denied the allegations made in RCNo. 2/91. Before the Rent Controller, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the respondent (owner) and documents Exs. P-1 to P-11 were marked on his behalf. The petitioner (tenant) examined himself as RW. 1 and no documents were marked on his behalf. On an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Rent Controller, through its order dated 28-2-1994, recorded a finding that the petitioner committed wilful default in payment of rents and ordered eviction. However, the contention of the respondent as to the bona fide requirement was rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal, being RA. No. 207/94 in the Court of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. The appellate Court, through its order dated 15-7-1999, confirmed the findings recorded by the Rent Controller. The petitioner assails the order of the Rent Controller as well as the appellate Court in this Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) Sri P.V. Sanjeeva Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner addressed his arguments mainly on two aspects, viz., (a) that the RC itself was not properly presented and it ought not to have been entertained by the Rent Controller. According to him, the petition was presented in the name of the respondent through GPA one Mr. Pandu. The document of GPA was not produced before the Court and, as such, the signing of the petition by the so-called GPA as well as pursuing the further proceedings by the said person are without authority of law and the Rent Controller ought not to have entertained the petition at all; and (b) that on his own showing, the respondent was suffering from epilepsy and in view of the provisions of Section 2 of the Mental Ill-health Act, 1987, he was not entitled to be represented by the GPA. According to him, this factor goes to the root of the matter and entire proceedings become incompetent and nullity. He did not address any arguments on the question of wilful default and had almost accepted the findings of the Courts below.

(3.) Mr. E. Phani Kumar, the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the contentions referred to above cannot be accepted for the reason that there were no pleadings on those aspects and they being the questions of fact cannot be raised for the first time in revision. He further states that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below on the question of wilful default cannot be interfered with in the revision.