GOPU PRATAP KUMAR Vs. BUDDHIRAJU LAXMANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 25.4.2012 passed in RCCMA. No. 9 of 2010 whereby the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama, upheld the order dated 29.10.2010 passed in RCC No. 4 of 2006 by the learned Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandigama, directing the petitioners to vacate the schedule house and handover the vacant possession to the respondent. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that: the father of the respondent leased out the schedule premises to the father of the petitioners in the year 1980. After demise of his father, the respondent succeeded to the schedule premises. He is a retired employee and having landed properties nearby Nandigama and he intended to stay at Nandigama. It has been averred that he has no house property except the schedule house and therefore he is in bona fide requirement of the schedule house for his comfortable stay and to look after the management of his landed properties and therefore he got issued a legal notice to the father of the petitioners on 24.6.2004 demanding him to vacate the schedule house and hand over same, to which, the father of the petitioners got issued reply, refusing to vacate the same. Thereafter, the respondent visited the schedule house on 12.6.2006 and came to know that the schedule house was without roof and find no inmates and the doors kept opened, and the main entrance gate was kept under lock. Expecting danger from the electric service connection to the inmates and passers-by and to avoid electrical accident, he rushed to the office of the AFSEDCL Sub Station, Nandigama and gave a requisition to disconnect the electricity service provided to the schedule premises and accordingly they disconnected the service connection provided to the schedule premises. Thereafter the respondent found another electric service connection No. 332 originally fixed to the door No. 19-107 situated near Mahalaxmi temple street, Nandigama which is far away to the schedule house. The respondent came to know that the father of the petitioners with a mala fide intention removed the said service from his own house and fixed the same to the schedule house without permission of the respondent. Again the respondent requested the Assistant Engineer of APSEDCL, Nandigama on 14.6.2006 to disconnect the said illegal service connection and on such request, the said service connection was disconnected. Thereafter, on knowing the whereabouts of the father of the petitioners questioned his illegal acts. Later, the father of the petitioners covered the roof of the schedule premises with tarpaulin sheet on 7.7.2006 to show that they were living in the schedule premises. On 16.6.2006 the respondent got video recording and photographs in respect of the schedule house showing gathered heaps of sand, baby stones and gravel which are kept for construction. Thereafter, the father of the petitioners filed a petition RCC No. 3 of 2006 under Section 14 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (for short 'the Act') to restore the amenities to the schedule premises. The said petition was contested by the respondent and therein, the learned Rent Controller appointed an Advocate Commissioner, who submitted a report regarding physical features of the schedule house. However, the father of the petitioners filed a memo dated 11.9.2006 stating that they compromised the matter and the electricity connection was restored to the schedule premises and sought for dismissal of RCC No. 3 of 2006 and on such memo, the Rent Controller dismissed the said RCC.

(2.) It has been averred that since beginning, the Northern portion of the petition schedule house is in possession of the respondent and he used to stay there as and when he visited Nandigama. However, as the father of the petitioners constructed special toilets on Northern-East of the schedule-premises without "permission of the respondent, thereby the possibility of living in the Northern portion of the schedule house by the" respondent became in vain. It has further been averred that the respondent never asked the petitioners to do repairs to the schedule premises and that the petitioners never allowed the respondent to visit "inside the schedule premises to assess the conditions; that the petitioners committed acts of waste which materially impaired the value and utility of the schedule house; that the petitioners did not give-any intimation to the respondent in respect of the alterations or got permission from the respondent before removal of the roof of the schedule premises and that the petitioners are unnecessarily causing hurdles in allowing the respondent to stay in Northern portion of the schedule premises. In view thereof, the respondent got issued legal notice dated 1.8.2006 to the petitioners demanding them to vacate the schedule house and hand over the same. The petitioners gave reply to the said notice refusing to vacate the schedule house. Hence, the respondent filed RCC No. 4 of 2006 for eviction of the petitioners from the petition schedule premises. After filing the said RCC, the father of the petitioners died and his legal heirs came on record and adopted the counter filed by their late father and contested the said RCC.

(3.) While so, the petitioners filed RCC No. 5 of 2006 for restoration of the amenities to the schedule house, the details of which are not necessary for adjudication of the present CRP.