KOLLPAKA SUSEELA Vs. PADMANABHA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the order of the Appellate Authority under the Rent Control Act cum Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda (for short 'the appellate Court') in C.M.A.No. 1 of 1998 dated 10-8-1998! The C.M.A. in turn was filed against the order of the Rent Controller cum District Munsif, Avanigadda (for short 'the Rent Controller'), in R.C.C.No. 45 of 1992 dated 20-10-1997. The petitioner in the R.C.C. and the appellant in the C.M.A. is the petitioner in this revision. The respondents in the Civil Revision Petition are the respondents in the R.C.C. as well as the C.M.A.

(2.) R.C.C.NO. 45 of 1992 was filed by the petitioner under Section 8(5) of the Act seeking permission of the Rent Controller to deposit the rents of the premises into the Court. It was claimed by the petitioner that she is the tenant in respect of the premises bearing D.No. 11/21 (Old D.No. 7/119) of Challapalli village and mandal, Krishna District. Originally, the premises was let out by one Mr. S.R. Y. Sivarama Prasad and on his death in 1976, respondents 1 and 2 succeeded to his interest. Till October, 1991, the respondents 1 and 2 have been receiving the rents and thereafter they refused to receive the same. When the 3rd respondent sought to dispossess the petitioner, she filed O.S.NO. 150/91 in the Court of the District Munsif, Machilipatnam, for permanent injunction and obtained a temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. When the rent was not being received by respondents 1 and 2, she got addressed a notice (Ex. A-1) to them. In the reply (Ex. A-2), respondents 1 and 2 stated that the property was sold in favour of the 3rd respondent. When a copy of the said notice was also marked to the 3rd respondent, there was no reply from him. When the rents were sent to respondent No. 3, he refused to receive the same. Accordingly, the petitioner sought permission of the Court to deposit the rents.

(3.) The 3rd respondent filed a counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner against him.