BONDADA NOOKARATNAM Vs. PENUGONDA MANIKYA GUPTAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the learned Counsel representing the Revision Petitioners-landlords and Sri V.LN.G.K.Murthy, the learned Counsel representing the respondent-tenant.

(2.) The present civil revision petition is filed under Section 22 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, in short hereinafter referred to as "Act'", as against an order RCA No.31 of 1999, dated 19-4-2000 on the file of the appellate authority-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, reversing the order in RCCNo.l of 1997 on the file of the [earned Rent Controller-District Munsif, Tuni. The eviction petition was filed on the following grounds: (I) wilful default in payment of rents, (2) bona fide requirement and (3) nuisance. The learned Rent Controller aller appreciating the evidence of PW 1 and RW1 and also Bx.A25 and Exs.B1 and B9 and the report of the Commissioner had arrived at a conclusion that the respondent-tenant committed wilful default and the petitioners-landlords arc entitled to the relief of eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement, But however, since there was no acceptable evidence relating to acts of nuisance in from of the shop by the respondent-tenant. Point No.3 alone was answered in favour of the respondent-tenant and aggrieved by the same, the respondent-tenant filed RCA No.31 of 1999 on the file of appellate authority- Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada and the said appeal was allowed by an order dated 19-4-2000 and the petitioners-landlords aggrieved by the same had preferred the Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) The facts in brief of the case arc as follows:- The petitioners are the absolute owners of the petition schedule shop and the respondent is a tenant in the said shop under the guise of rent letter dated 1-12-1991. As per the terms and conditions of the rent letter, the respondent agreed to vacate the schedule shop by 31-10-1992 and the respondent further agreed to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.725/- per month payable by the first of succeeding month for the preceding month. The above two are the main conditions. The respondent knowing fully well that the lease period will be terminated by 31-10-1992 filed a suit OS No.93 of 1992 on the file of DMC, Tuni and obtained ex pane injunction orders against the petitioners. The respondent was a chronic wilful defaulter in payment of monthly rents. During the lease period in between 1-12-1991 to 31-10-1992 the petitioners used to issue the receipt when the respondent paid the rents. After the period the respondent never offered the monthly rent and sending the same by money order. The petitioners used to collect those amounts subject to their rights and contentions. In page (3) of the petition averments, the petitioners showed the dates of payment of rents for the respective months asserting the respondent committed wilful default in payment of rents intentionally and on that ground alone, the respondent is liable to be evicted from the schedule shop. The respondent filed RCC 3 of 1996 for deposit of rents into the Court in October 1996 till today, but no amount was deposited into the Court.