M RAMACHANDRAIAH Vs. C VENKATESHAN DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Laxminarayana Reddy representing the revision petitioners and Sri Rajasekhar representing the respondents.

(2.) C.R.P. 2962 of 1997 is filed by the revision petitioners being aggrieved by the order impugned in R.A.No.59 of 1994 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad dated 7-7-1997. The said R.A.59 of 1994 was filed by the petitioner one Sri Venkatesham in R.C.No.248 of 1986 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad. The said Venkatesham died during the pendency of the appeal and C. Jagadeswara Chary was brought on record for the purpose of further prosecuting the litigation. The landlord filed R.C.No.248 of 1986 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad on the grounds of wilful default, sub-letting, securing the alternative accommodation and also bona fide requirements. But however, the ground of bona fide requirement was given up. The evidence was let in by both the parties before the Rent Controller. Landlord was examined as P.W.I. 1st revision petitioner in the C.R.P. was examined as R.W.2 and 2nd revision petitioner was examined as R.W.1. Apart from it, one Jagadamba was examined as R.W.3. Ex.P-1 was marked on behalf of the petitioner. Exs.R-1 to R-21 and Ex.X-1 were marked. In fact, originally, Ramachandraiah son of Varadaiah alone was impleaded as a party and C. Krishna son-in-law of said Varadaiah filed an application I.A.No.388 of 1988 to implead himself as a party and the said application was allowed on 13-7-1989. The Court of first instance dismissed the eviction petition in R.C.No.248 of 1986 on the ground that the 2nd respondent, who was brought on record, is not liable to be evicted as no relief is sought against him in the eviction petition and aggrieved by the same, the land lord had preferred R.A.No.59 of 1994 wherein it was held that the ground of wilful default is established and consequently the appeal was allowed and aggrieved by the same, C.R.P.No.2962 of 1997 was preferred by both Ramachandraiah and Krishna, son-in-law of late Varadaiah. The said C. Krishna filed RC No.197 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad under Section 8 (5) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (for short 'the Act') seeking permission to deposit the rents. On behalf of the respective parties, Exs.P-1 to P-14 and Ex.R-1 are marked and learned Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad had dismissed RC 197 of 1999 by order dated 7-8-1983. Aggrieved by the same, the said C. Krishna had preferred R.A.No. 448 of 1993 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, which was also dismissed by order dated 7-7-1997 and aggrieved by the same C.R.P.No.4658 of 1997 was filed by the said. C. Krishna and likewise both the above C.R.Ps came up for final hearing before this Court and in view of the fact that both the C.R.Ps. are closely connected, both the matters are being disposed of by this common order.

(3.) Sri Laxminaryana Reddy representing the petitioners had contended that the 2nd revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.2962 of 1997 is the tenant falling under the definition of tenant under Section 2 (ix) of the Act. Learned counsel also had contended that in fact the 2nd petitioner was a member of the composite family of Varadaiah and as such he is entitled to continue as statutory tenant under the Act. Learned counsel also had placed reliance on decisions in the case of R. Ramanujam v. D. Venkat Rao (AIR 1982 A.P. page 227] and also in the case of Vijay Kumar (dead) through LRs. [2000 (1) RCJ 155] and placed strong reliance on the said decisions. Learned counsel had contended that 2nd revision petitioner C. Krishna definitely falls under the definition of the tenant under the Act and hence the appellate authority deciding the matter as though Ramachandraiah alone can be treated as a tenant after the death of his father Varadaiah is totally unsustainable. Learned counsel also had drawn my attention to paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the order of the appellate authority and had contended that the findings recorded by the appellate authority are not sustainable in law. Learned counsel also had contended that in facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the ground of wilful default had been established by the landlord. Learned counsel also had placed strong reliance on a decision in the case of Rashik Lal v. Shah Gokuldas (AIR 1989 SC page 920] and had contended that since the landlord accepted accumulated rents without any objection, the eviction of the tenant on the ground of default in payment of rents is not permissible. Learned counsel had made certain submissions about the report of the Commissioner in C.M.P.No.5228 of 2000 in C.R.P.No. 2962 of 1997. Learned counsel had drawn my attention to several objections filed to the report of the Commissioner. Learned counsel had pointed out that as far as C.R.P.No. 4658 of 1997 is concerned, the Courts below had totally erred in refusing the request of C. Krishna seeking permission to deposit the rents. Learned counsel had drawn my attention to both the oral and documentary evidence available on record.