YASHODA BAI Vs. OM PRAKASH DHOOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Kishore Rai, the learned counsel representing the legal representatives of the tenant-cum-revision petitioner, and Sri Malla Reddy, learned senior counsel representing the respondent-landlord.

(2.) As can be seen from the record, Smt. Yashoda Bai, original tenant died during the pendency of the Civil Revision Petition and revision petitioners 2 to 4 were brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased revision petitioner by an order made in C.M.P.No.5567 of 2002, dated 16-10-2003. The respondent-landlord filed R.C.No.822 of 1994 on the file of the IV Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad, praying for eviction of the tenant on the grounds of willful default, securing alternative accommodation, sub-letting the premises. The learned Additional Rent Controller had dismissed R.C.No.822 of 1994 by an order dated 09-05-1997. Aggrieved by the same, the landlord-Sri Om Prakash Dhoot preferred R.A.No.207 of 1997 on the file of the Additional chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad-Appellate Authority, and the Appellate Authority having confirmed the findings on all other aspects, had arrived at a conclusion that the landlord had established the ground of securing alternative accommodation, and on that ground eviction was ordered. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant-Smt.Yashoda Bai preferred the present Civil Revision Petition, who died pending litigation and legal representatives had already been brought on record as referred to supra.

(3.) Sri Kishore Rai, learned counsel representing the legal representatives of the tenant had taken this Court through the findings recorded by both the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority and had submitted that in view of the concurrent findings recorded relating to other grounds, the same may not be disturbed by the revisional Court. Learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the relevant findings in relation to the ground of tenant securing alternative accommodation and had commented that the approach of the Appellate Authority in this regard, cannot be sustained especially in the light of the fact that Ex.A-4 stands in the name of one Kanthamma and the same was marked by consent after closure of the evidence of PW.1.The learned counsel also had drawn attention of this Court to the clear findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and the pleading relating to the ground of securing alternative accommodation made in the eviction petition and also had commented that the view expressed by the Appellate Authority relating to the burden of proof, definitely cannot be sustained, especially in the light of Ex.B-16 counsel also commented that it is unfortunate that a reasonable opportunity to rebut Ex.A-4 had not been given, which had resulted in miscarriage of justice. The learned counsel had assailed the findings of the Appellate Authority in this regard reversing well-conversed findings of the learned Rent Controller.