PAPPULA DEVADAS Vs. YETUKURI PANKAJAM [DIED]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/tenant under Sec. 22 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (herein after called in short 'Rent Control Act') against the Orders passed in RCA No.22 of 2013, dtd. 17/7/2015 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, wherein and whereby the learned Appellate Judge dismissed the Rent Control Appeal filed by the revision petitioner/tenant and confirmed the Orders passed by the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur in RCC No.17 of 2010, dtd. 5/11/2013. The revision petitioner, who is the tenant of R1 in respect of RCC No.17 of 2010 case schedule shop room. R1/landlord filed petition against revision petitioner before the Rent Controller under Sec. 10(2)(i)(iii) and 10(3)(I)(a)(d) and 10C(1)(a) of Rent Control Act seeking eviction of the petitioner from the petition schedule property and for delivery of the vacant possession of the same. During the pendency of the petition, R1/landlord died and R2 to R4 were brought on record as her legal heirs.

(2.) The petitioner and R2 to R4 hereinafter referred to as tenant and landlords as arrayed before the Rent Control Court.

(3.) The landlord filed petition stating that the petition schedule premises consisting of ground and first floor. The ground floor let out to the tenant for monthly rent of Rs.1,100.00 per month in December, 1993 for running a printing press and later on a lease agreement was entered on 25/1/1997 for a period of seven years. The agreed rent was Rs.1,300.00 per month from August, 1999. She submits that the tenant also occupied first floor and lease period was expired by 25/1/2004, in spite of it the tenant is continuing in the premises unauthorizedly without any further lease by conducting the business in the ground floor and using the first floor for his residence. It is the contention of the landlady/1st petitioner that she is a retired lecturer, aged about 85 years demanded the tenant to vacate the premises after completion of lease period on 25/1/2004, for which the tenant refused and then he filed suit in OS.No.1292 of 2004 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Guntur which was decreed and thereafter the landlady/1st petitioner filed suit in OS.No.2691 of 2004 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Guntur for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rents and on other grounds, which was dismissed and then she preferred an appeal which also dismissed. Now, the landlords preferred Second Appeal before this Court. It is alleged that the tenant paid rents upto December, 2006 and later failed to pay the rents regularly, as the legal proceedings pending between the parties, the landlady was under an impression that the tenant will deposit rents in that proceedings, which he failed to do so and he is in unauthorized occupation of petition schedule premises without paying rents regularly from January, 2007. It is also the contention of the landlady that she requires petition schedule premises for her personal occupation as of now she being retired person wants to settle at Guntur and lease period was also completed by 1/11/2008 itself. They pray for eviction of respondents.