GOTTUMUKKALA BHASKARA RAJU Vs. MAMIDL PADMAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri A.V. Sesha Sai, the counsel representing the petitioner and Sri P. Satyanarayana, the counsel representing the respondents.

(2.) The order impugned in the present Civil Revision Petition is an order made in C.M,A.No. 4 of 2000 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram. The appellant and respondents in C.M.A.No. 4 of 2000 are the petitioner and respondents herein respectively. The Appellate Authority after recording the facts ultimately at para 10 had answered the point as here under: "Heard both sides. According to the appellant/respondent the lower Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and that the appellant/respondent denied the title of the landlord and that the appellant has also deposited the rents as per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court and hence, the appeal may be allowed. On the other hand the respondents/ petitioners contended that the lower Court has elaborately discussed the evidence on record and rightly held that the appellant is the defaulter and is liable to be evicted and that the lower Court had clearly observed that the respondents are the landlords in E.P. No. 1/2000 and eviction was ordered and hence, the appeal may be dismissed. A perusal of the order of the lower Court, clearly shows that the lower Court has elaborately discussed the evidence onrecord and clearly observed that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the respondent and that the appellant/ respondent has committed wilful default in payment of rents and ordered eviction of the appellant/respondent within two months. The petitioners however filed Exs. A-3 to A-5. The claim petition filed by the petitioners was also dismissed by the lower Court holding that the appellant/respondent is the tenant and that he committed default. It cannot, therefore be said that the respondents/petitioners are not the landlords and that the appellant/ respondent has not committed any default. I, therefore, hold that there are no grounds at all to set aside the order and decree of the lower Court. I find on the point accordingly. In theresult, the appeal fails mutts dismissed. No costs.

(3.) It is pertinent to note that at the AppellateStage onbehalf of the respondents Ex. A-3, A-4 and A-5 were marked. Be that as it may, I had gone through the respective contentions of the parties and also the reasons recorded by the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority as a whole. I am of the considered opinion that the Appellate Authority is expected to independent apply its mind and record the reasons even while confirming the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller. May be that the said reasons need not be so elaborate while confirming the reasons recorded by the learned Rent Controller. At any rate, the Appellate Authority also is expected to independently apply the mind and record the reasons, at least is should be suggestive of such application of mind while confirming the reasons recorded by the original authority i.e., the concerned Rent Controller. I am thoroughly satisfied that the reasons recorded by the Appellate Authority cannot be said to be reasons at all so as to answer the test of independent application of the mind by the Appellate Authority. In this view of the matter I am of the consider opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained, and the same is hereby set aside.