K KARMESWARA SARMA Vs. K VENKATA RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On an application made to the district Munsif-cum-Rent Controller, Visakapatnam in H. R. C. No. 38 of 1965, the eviction of the tenant was ordered. From that decision, an appeal was preferred by the tenant to the appellate authority. The appeal succeeded and the order of eviction was set aside . In this revision petition the landlords challenge the validity of the conclusions of the Subordinate Judge, who disposed of the appeal as the appellate authority under the relevant statute.

(2.) There was an earlier proceeding for eviction instituted in the year 1958. The application was allowed by the Rent Controller and in an appeal preferred to the Subordinate Judge, Visakapatnam, in C. M. A. No. 8 of 1960, the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the tenant was allowed to run a hotel in the premises and therefore, the rule of estoppel prevented the landlords from recovering possession of the house for their residence. Although the Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the that the landlords required the house bona fide for their residence, the application for eviction was rejected because the landlords were precluded from using the house as residence. There was a revision petition preferred by the landlords from C. M. A. No. 8 of 1960 but the Revision Petition C. R.P. No. 1 of 1963 on the file of the District Court was withdrawn. As a result of the withdrawal, the revision petition was dismissed on 8-10-1963. About two months later, the landlords who withdrew the revision petition conveyed their interest in the property to one Kuchibhotal Subrahmanya Sastry. The transaction is evidenced by Ex. A-1 dated 10-12-1063.

(3.) The purchaser thereupon initiated the present proceeding for eviction alleging inter alia that the tenant had agreed to attorn to him and that as the landlord owns no other residential house, he requires the demised premises for his personal occupation. Other grounds have also been urged in supported of the petitioner for eviction , viz., that the house is in a dilapidated condition and that the house is in a dilapidated condition and that it is necessary to demolish it and put up a new structure. The tenant resisted the petition. The Rent Controller allowed the petition for eviction but the Subordinate Judge acting as the Appellate Authority under the Act allowed the tenants appeal and it is the latter order that is the subject-matter of this revision petition. The legal representatives of the landlord continued the proceedings after the latters death.