KAMISETTY PEDDA VENKATA SUBBAMMA Vs. CHINNA KUMMAGANDLA VENKATAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlords have preferred this revision against the judgment rendered in RCA No.l of 1996 by the Rent Controller Appellate authority-cum-Senior Civil Judge, Cuddapah confirming the order of the Principal District Munsif-cum- Rent Controller, Cuddapah dismissing the application filed for eviction holding that the rent agreement produced before the Court is not genuine one.

(2.) The judgment of the Appellate Court is impugned on two grounds, viz., the Rent Controller Appellate Authority has not considered the written arguments and he has not compared the signatures on the vakalat, counter and the disputed document, where the respondent has denied his signature. The landlords Counsel has also sought for sending back the matter for reconsideration in the light of the written argoments presented before the Court. Reliance is also placed on a decision reported in G. Jaya Rao v. State of A.P:, Land Reforms, Srikakulam, 2003 (2) AfiD 926 = 2003 (3) ALT 127.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has contended that as the findings given by both the Courts, are concurrent, there is no need to interfere with the findings of fact and while contending that the Court has got ample power to compare the signatures, both the Courts found that the document in question is a forged one, and he sought for upholding of the order of the Appellate Court.