ATUFA TRAVELS Vs. GANGABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful tenant in both the Courts below had preferred the c. R. P. under Section 22 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, here-in-after, referred to as 'the act' for the purpose of convenience ). Respondent herein (here-in-after referred as 'landlady') filed R. C. No. 599/97 on the file of II Additional rent Controller, Hyderabad, for eviction on the ground of wilful default and also on the ground that the tenant ceased to occupy the scheduled premises. On the ground of ceasing to occupy the scheduled premises or securing alternative accommodation, the learned Rent Controller negatived the same, but however, on the ground of wilful default, eviction was ordered. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant preferred r. A. No. 278/99 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes court, Hyderabad, which was confirmed and aggrieved by the same, the present C. R. P. is preferred.

(2.) SRI Vilas V Afzulpurkar, the learned Counsel representing the tenant had taken this Court through the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 and also rw. 1, and Ex. P. 1 and also Exs. R. 1 to R. 9 and the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also the Appellate Authority and would contend that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the plea that the tenant committed default for the relevant period, when no default was committed on any other period, whatsoever, definitely cannot be believed. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the Appellate authority having observed that the findings of the Rent Controller are erroneous should not have dismiss the appeal. The learned Counsel pointed out to the relevant portions of the order impugned in the present C. R. P.

(3.) ON the contrary, Sri Raghuveera Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the landlady would contend that the period of default of 10 months is clear and categorical and the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rents for the said period and concurrent findings had been recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also the appellate Authority and hence, the C. R. P. is liable to be dismissed despite the fact that an observation was made by the Appellate authority that the findings of the Rent Controller are erroneous.