PYDAH RAMMOHANA RAO Vs. MANDARAPU MAHALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri M.S.R. Subrahmanyam, counsel for Revision Petitioner and Sri E.V.S.S. Ravi Kumar, Counsel representing respondents.

(2.) The unsuccessful landlord before both the Tribunals below is the Revision petitioner. The Revision petitioner/landlord filed R.C.C.NO. 19/85 on the file of House Rent Controller/Principal District Munsif, Kakinada against respondent M. Brahmaji Rao, who died, and respondents 2 and 3 were added as legal representatives as per orders in I.A.No. 3124/92, dated 3-12-1992.

(3.) The Revision petitioner/landlord filed the said eviction petition on the ground of wilful default. The Primary Tribunal / House Rent Controller/Principal District Munsif, Kakinada, on the respective pleadings of the parties and having record the evidence of P.W. 1, R.W. 1 and R.W. 2 and marking Exs. A-1 and A-2 and Exs. B-1 to B-3 had framed the Points for consideration and had recorded findings that the respondents had not committed any wilful default especially in view of the fact that the landlord was holding an amount of Rs. 2000/- belonging to the respondents and also held that the landlord was in the habit of receiving payment of rents at irregular intervals for two or three months and all of a sudden with a view to make it a ground for eviction, the plea of wilful default had been raised and having recorded such findings, ultimately the relief was negatived to the Revision petitioner/landlord. Aggrieved by thesame, the unsuccessful landlord had carried the matter by way of R.C.A.No. 33/94 on the file of Appellate Authority/Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada who had dismissed the same and aggrieved by the same the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred. Pending the Civil Revision Petition, the 1st respondent also died and the 3rd respondent is brought onrecotd.