JAGDISH Vs. SHYAM SUNDER PERSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the tenant. The respondent laid an action for ejecting him under Section 10(2)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (15 of 1960) for short, 'the Act', contending that the petitioner has committed wilful default in the payment of rent from December 1969 to November, 1973. The defence raised by the petitioner is that there was an oral agreement entered into between himself and the landlord permitting him to effect repairs and adjust from the rent payable in future. Pending the petition for eviction, an application under Section 11 of the Act being I.A. No. 1902/74 was filed; an enquiry was held, evidence was adduced and on enquiry the Rent Controller found that the plea of adjustment is not proved. The petitioner committed default. He was ordered to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,700/- representing arrears of rent. He accordingly deposited the same. Then, against that order, the matter has ultimately come up for revision in this Court and it was dismissed. Thus it became final.

(2.) IT is not necessary to dilate with regard to subsequent proceedings, but suffice it to state that the petitioner as well as the landlord filed memos on April 18, 1980 requesting the Rent Controller to treat the evidence adduced in the I.A. as evidence in the main case. Thereafter, the evidence thus on record was considered and the Rent Controller this time agreed with the tenant-petitioner that he did not commit wilful default resulting in dismissing the petition. On appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the finding, and ordered eviction. Thus this revision.

(3.) SRI K.G. Sastry learned counsel appearing for the respondent addressed an astounding contention that the appellate Tribunal need not consider the evidence but suffice to agree with the findings of Rent Controller. This contention without any inkling of thought is stated to be rejected. He further contends that the appellate Tribunal even without considering the evidence, recorded the findings that it is wilful default. It is a finding of fact and needs no interference in this revision. The appellant Tribunal, a senior District Judge, does not appear to be aware of the elementary principle of the appellate powers. In G. Ramaiah v. K. Gangappa, 1983(1) APLJ 29 this Court has held :