MANCHUKONDA SRINIVASAM Vs. VEMPOLU BRAHMANANDA RAO DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. When the case was taken up for hearing on 20-1-2003 and on 21-1-2003 there was no representation on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18-1-2000 passed in R.C.A.11/96 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority- cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereby the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority set aside the order dated 18-4-1996 passed in R.C.C.255/ 95 on the file of the Rent Controller, Visakhapatnam and consequently the petition filed by the petitioner/landlord for eviction of V.Brahmananda Rao, the tenant and father of respondents herein, from the building specified in the schedule appended to the eviction petition has ended in dismissal.

(3.) The petitioner herein is the owner of the petition schedule premises. Machukonda Srinivas took the premises on a monthly rent of Rs.100/-. He has two sons and both of them are unemployed. His father and brothers are carrying on business in gold and silver ornaments which is their family trade. He retired from service and therefore he intends to start the business in making gold and silver ornaments with the assistance of his eldest son who is an unemployee. As he has no accommodation to start his business, he has been demanding the tenant/V.Brahmananda Rao to vacate the schedule premises. The schedule premises is in the business locality and it is best suited for gold and silver business. The tenant allegedly demanded huge amount of Rs.50,000/- for vacating the premises. As the tenant failed to oblige the petitioner, he filed R.C.C.255/ 95 (old 7/93) on the file of Rent Controller, Visakhapatnam under Section 10(3) of A.P. Building Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act (in short the Act) for eviction of the tenant/V.Brahmananda Rao. The tenant filed R.C.C.251/95 (old 72/93) under Section 19 of the Act to direct the landlord to make repairs to the scheduled premises. It is the case of the tenant that the schedule premises is an old one with tiled roofing in a dilapidated condition and it is unsafe to occupy and to run the business. It is further the case of the tenant that the landlord and his sons constituted joint family and that the eldest son is working in Bommana Brothers and whereas the landlord and his second son are doing business in one of their shops. The landlord filed counter to the petition filed by the tenant under Section 19 of the Act contending that he has been attending to periodical repairs to the scheduled premises. The Rent Controller clubbed both the RCCs and passed common order on 18-4-1996 dismissing the R.C.C.251/95 filed by the tenant under Section 19 of the Act and allowing the R.C.C.255/95 filed by the landlord under Section 10(3) of the Act. The tenant filed Rent Control Appeals Aggrieved by the order dated 18-1-2000 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. R.C.A.11/96 is filed against the order passed in R.C.C.251/ 95. Pending disposal of the RCAs the tenant died and the respondent herein came on record as his legal representative as per I.A.64/99 dated 1.4.1999 in R.C. 11/96 and as per orders in I.A.65/99 dated 8.4.1999 in R.C.A.12/96. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority by order dated 18-1-2000 allowed R.C.A.11/96 setting aside the order of Rent Controller passed in R.C.C.255/95 dated 18-4-1996 and consequently dismissed the application of the petitioner/landlord filed under Section 10(3) of the Act seeking eviction of the tenant. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam passed in R.C.11/96, the petitioner/ landlord has filed this Civil Revision Petition.