G KESAVA RAO Vs. MANOHAR VARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that falls for consideration in this revision petition is whether the concurrent findings recorded by the learned IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad in R.C.No.226 of 1990 and the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.A.No.288 of 1993 are perverse and not based upon the evidence available on record and if so whether this Court, in exercise of its revisional power under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short "the Act") can interfere with their orders.

(2.) The factual background of this case is that the petitioner-landlord originally hails from Thakkellapadu village in Krishna District. On appointment as a Teacher, came to Khammam District and he retired from service in the year 1977. During his service, he not only constructed a house at Khammam but also purchased the suit schedule building at Hyderabad. As he was residing at Khammam due to his employment, he let out the suit schedule building to the respondent. It has also come to light that the tenancy started with a rent of Rs.70.00 per month and the rent is being enhanced from time to time. On the date of filing of the eviction petition, R.C.No.226 of 1990, the respondent-tenant was paying rent of Rs. 250.00 per month and the rents were being collected by his 'sambandhi' who stays at Hyderabad and who was examined as P.W.2. On 12-12-1989 the petitioner gave notice to the respondent that the suit schedule building was required for his personal occupation, and requested the respondent to vacate the suit schedule building and hand over the vacant possession thereof to him. The respondent having received the notice paid the rent of Rs.275/- for the month of December, 1989 to P.W.2. For the month of January 1990, P.W.2 refused to collect the rent on the ground that the petitioner advised him not to collect enhanced rent as he was going to file eviction petition. At this stage, the respondent sent a reply notice on 19-3-1990 stating that the suit schedule building was not required for the personal occupation of the petitioner and that such a notice was given for enhancing the rent. Thereafter the petitioner filed eviction petition, R.C.No.226 of 1990, on the file of the learned IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad under Section 10(2) (1) and Sec. 10(3)(a)(i)(a) of the Act both on the grounds of wilful default and personal occupation. On behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner and his 'sambandhi' were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.P-1 to P-25 were marked. The respondent got himself examined as R.W.I and marked Exs.R-1 to 13. The learned IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad framed the following issues:

(3.) With regard to the wilful default, the learned Counsel for petitioner submits that he is not pressing the issue. As far as the bona fide requirement is concerned he argues that the finding recorded by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad is perverse and based on mere surmises and conjectures. As such the order is liable to be set aside.