M VIKURATAN Vs. MAHENDER KUMAR GANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SRI Satyanarayana Reddy, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner; made the following submissions :

(2.) THE learned Counsel would maintain that the revision petitioner is an unfortunate tenant, hereinafter referred to as tenant, who had been successful in the prior litigation which was filed on the ground of wilful default by the self-same landlord, relating to the schedule premises and again on the self-same ground, the present eviction petition had been thought of by the respondent, hereinafter referred to as landlord, for the purpose of convenience. The learned Counsel also would "maintain that the explanation given by the tenant is so natural and convincing that in view of the longstanding intimacy between the parties, quite often at irregular intervals, he had been collecting rents and subsequent thereto just to make it a ground for eviction, the landlord was reluctant to receive the rents. The learned Counsel would also explain that the landlord had not entered into the witness box. Apart from the said aspect of the matter, none having at least the knowledge about the state of affairs had been examined on behalf of the landlord and in the light of the same, the findings recorded by both the Courts below on the aspect of wilful default, cannot be sustained, inasmuch as there is no evidence forthcoming on behalf of the landlord and hence adverse inference may have to be drawn. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on the decisions in Vidyadhar v. Manikrao, and Gulla Kharagjit v. Narsingh Nandkishore rawat,.

(3.) PER contra, Sri Vijay Kumar Heroor, learned Counsel representing respondent-landlord made the following submissions :