PENTAKOTA ANJANEYULU Vs. MOPADA SRINU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Sec. 22 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called in short "Rent Control Act") against the Orders passed R.C.A. 3 of 2011, dtd. 10/11/2014 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Tribunal-cum-Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, wherein and whereby learned appellate Judge allowed appeal filed by the respondent/tenant setting aside the orders passed by learned Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, in R.C.C.No.4 of 2006, dtd. 1/4/2011 and dismissed eviction petition filed by the appellant.

(2.) The revision petitioner filed R.C.C.No.4 of 2006 in respect of thatched house bearing D.No.8-12-4 in Vizianagaram Town. The revision petitioner filed petition against the respondent before the Rent Controller under Sec. 10 (ii) and (iii) of Rent Control Act seeking eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule property on the ground of willful default and bona fide requirement stating that he is landlord of petition schedule thatched house along with vacant site bearing D.No.8-12-4, in T.S.No.1073/C.1 situated in lower tank bund road in Santhapet, South ward, Vizianagaram. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent approached his father Mr.P.Suryanarayana in the month of March, 1995 and requested him to let out the petition schedule house for a period of 11 months which he needed it for his residence and also for doing business in cement ventilators which agreed by the father of the petitioner and let out house and vacant site to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.300.00, which has to be paid on the first day of every succeeding English Calendar month and the tenancy was oral for a period of 11 months from April, 1995. The petitioner submits that it was also agreed between his father and the respondent that the respondent should not cause any acts of waste or damage and no major or minor repairs should be executed without permission of his father which agreed by the respondent and took the thatched house along with vacant site on lease. The petitioner alleged that the respondent has not paid the rents regularly due to that his father demanded the respondent to vacate from petition schedule property and after expiry of lease period of 11 months when his father asked the respondent to vacate from petition schedule property, who told him that he did not get a suitable accommodation and prolonged the matter till the end of the year, 2002 and thereafter when father of the petitioner asked the respondent to vacate petition schedule property and hand over vacant possession and then the respondent filed suit in O.S.No.59 of 2003 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Vizianagaram, seeking permanent injunction wherein he obtained ex parte decree as father of the petitioner said to be fell ill and not contested the suit and thereafter he died. It is also the contention of the petitioner that he became absolute owner of the property as plaint schedule property fell to his share in oral partition with his family members and filed petition for eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule property. The respondent/tenant filed written statement before Rent Controller denying averments in the petition filed by the petitioner. It is the contention of the respondent that he took the petition schedule property on lease from the father of the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.300.00 under on oral lease in the year, 1995 and since then he has been regularly paying the rents every month to the father of the petitioner but the father of the petitioner was not in the habit of issuing receipts for the rents paid by him. He alleged that due to escalation of prices of immovable properties in petition schedule locality, the father of the petitioner openly proclaimed that he will evict him from the petition schedule property by using criminal force due to that he filed O.S.No.59 of 2003 seeking permanent injunction and got a decree which not challenged by father of the petitioner by filing any appeal.

(3.) The main contention of the respondent is that one Mr.Lanka Seethayya issued a notice to him stating that he purchased petition schedule property from Mr.K.Appala Narasayya under a registered sale deed dtd. 22/8/2005 for a valuable consideration and he demanded him to pay the rents every month regularly and thereafter he approached the petitioner and his family members enquired about the right, title, interest or possession over the petition schedule property, who informed that originally, the petition schedule property belongs to Penumatsa Seetharama Raju, who sold the same to Mr.K.Appala Narasayya under a registered sale deed dtd. 31/3/1969 and family members of the petitioner represented to him that they are noway concerned with the petition schedule property and directed him to pay monthly rents regularly to Mr.Lanka Seethayya and accordingly he has been paying rents regularly to Mr.Lanka Seethayya. The respondent submit that he never committed any willful default in paying rents either to the father of the petitioner or to the family members of the petitioner or to Mr.Lanka Seethayya and there is no landlord and tenant relationship in between himself and the petitioner due to that provisions of Rent Control Act are not applicable to the case. He prays to dismiss the petition.