S K SHARMA Vs. A VISWANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is preferred by the tenant under Section 22 of A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, hereinafter in short referred to as "act" for the purpose of convenience, aggrieved by the reversing order made in R. A. No. 8/99 on the file of Additional chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. Respondent herein, petitioner in RC. No. 779/94 on the file of IV Additional Rent controller, Hyderabad filed eviction petition praying for the relief on the grounds of Section 10 (3) (b) (iii) (a) proviso (c) bona fide personal requirement, mala fide denial of title, material alterations and unlawful activities. The learned Rent Controller on appreciation of the evidence of PW-1 and RW-1 and Exs. A-1 to A-17 and Exs. B-1 to B-82 dismissed the R. C. by order dated 2-12-1998. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner in R. C. /respondent in the present civil revision petition, hereinafter referred to as "landlord" filed R. A. No. 8/99 on the file of additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and by order dated 27-1-2004 the Appeal was allowed on the grounds of mala fide denial of title, wilful default and bona fide personal requirement and the relief on other grounds had been negatived. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is preferred.

(2.) SRI Atchutanand, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner, hereinafter referred to as "tenant" would maintain that the reasons recorded by the learned Rent Controller are justifiable reasons and the Appellate Authority had reversed the findings on unsustainable grounds. The learned Counsel also had pointed out that the landlord had not furnished all the particulars as required by Section 28 of the act and the Rules framed thereunder. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the order made in R. C. No. 23/94 filed by the tenant under Section 9 (3) of the Act and would contend that in the light of the same, to say that the denial of title is mala fide definitely cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also on facts made an attempt to convince this Court that there is no denial of title at all. The learned Counsel also would comment that there is no ground of wilful default at all, but surprisingly the Appellate Authority had recorded certain findings on the said ground also and hence those findings definitely cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also advanced certain submissions relating to Ex. A-4 and would comment that this would not amount to attornment of tenancy and hence in the light of the clear evidence of RW-1 the findings recorded by the appellate Authority cannot be sustained.

(3.) PER contra, Sri Jagapathi, the learned Counsel representing the respondent/ landlord would submit that as far as the ground of bona fide personal requirement is concerned, the landlord deposed in detail on this aspect and the evidence was appreciated in proper perspective and eviction was ordered by the Appellate Authority. The Counsel also would contend that on the aspect of denial of title it is not as though the order made in R. C. No. 23/94 alone is available on record. Apart from this aspect of the matter, Ex. A-4 notice which was duly served on the tenant and also the written statement filed by Bheem Rao, the original owner, in O. S. No. 2/94 on the file of III Assistant Judge, would clearly go to show that the sale of property by the original owner Bheem Rao in favour of the landlord is within the knowledge of tenant and the tenant despite the same had denied the title specifically deposing in cross-examination that he did not recognize the mutation effected in favour of the landlord under Exs. A-2 and A-3. The learned counsel would contend that this will negate the bona fides of the tenant and hence the denial may have to be taken as mala fide denial. The learned Counsel also had placed reliance on certain decisions in this regard.