D L SATYANARAYANA Vs. K RADHA KRISHNAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the tenant in a residential premises. The tenancy is oral, and the rent is Rs. 150/- per month. The respondent landlord filed RCC No. 3/1989 before the Principal District Munsif (Rent Controller), Punganur for eviction of the petitioner on four grounds, viz., that he bona fide requires the premises for personal occupation, that the petitioner committed wilful defaultin payment of rents from Junly, 1986 to June, 1988, that the petitioner committed some acts of waste and that the petitioner had secured alternative accommodation, the learned Rent Controller negatived all the contentions except the contention relating to wilful default in payment of rents and directed eviction of the petitioner. On appeal by the petitioner, the appellate authority agreed with the Rent Controller that there was wilful default in payment of rents and confirmed the Order of eviction leading to filing of this Revision Petition by the tenant.

(2.) Before the Rent Controller, the petitioner fued an additional counter to the effect that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the petition for eviction is filed within 10 years from the date of completion of the construction of the premises in question, basing on G.O. Ms .No .636, GAD ( Accomodation - A) dated 29-12-1983. The learned Rent Controller found that the period of 10 years has elapsed from the date of occupation of the premises in question before the filing of the petition fareviction on 1-5-1989.

(3.) Before the appellate authority, the petitioner has not raised the ground relating to the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller, and the appellate authority had no occasion to deal with the said objection. In the Revision Petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised the question of jurisdiction and contended that the evidence of the respondent himself reveals that the 10 years period did not elapse before the filing of the petition for eviction. The learned Rent Controller relied on Ex.B-5 which is an affidavit of the petitioner dated 30-5-1988, wherein it is stated that for the past 9 years he was the tenant in the premises. Based on the said admission, the learned Rent Controller held that the period of more than 10 years had elapsed before the petition for eviction was filed on 1-5-1989, This being a finding of fact, should have been questioned , before the appellate authority which is the appropriate forum to go into the said question of fact. The petitioner did not choose to raise the ground relating to jurisdiction before the appellate authority.