M.A. SAYEED Vs. B. JANAK RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M.A. Sayeed, the unsuccessful tenant filed present Civil Revision Petition under Sec. 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act 1960, in short hereinafter referred to as "Act".

(2.) B. Janak Ram, respondent herein, is the landlord. One Praveen Kumar filed R.C. No. 12/90 on the file of Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad as against the Revision Petitioner M.A. Sayeed for eviction on certain grounds and Janak Ram was added as the 2nd petitioner by virtue of orders in I.A. No. 339/93 dated 16-2-1994. Janak Ram filed R.C. No. 163/93 on the file of Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad as against the said Sayeed praying for the relief of eviction. The learned Rent Controller recorded the evidence of Janak Ram as PW-1 and Sayeed as RW-1, marked Exs. P-1 to P-15 and Exs. R-1 to R-92 and allowed both R.C. No. 12/90 and R.C. No. 163/93 directing the tenant to vacate the schedule premises within two months from the date of the order. Aggrieved by the same as against the order in R.C. No. 12/90, R.A. No. 378/2000 and as against the order in R.C. No. 163/93, R.A. No. 379/2000 was preferred to the Appellate Authority-Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and the learned Judge by Common Order allowed R.A. No. 378/2000 setting aside the order of eviction but however dismissed R.A. No. 379/2000 confirming the order of eviction made in R.C. No. 163/93 directing the tenant to vacate the petition schedule premises and delivered vacant possession of the same to Janak Ram within three months from the date of order and the tenant was granted liberty to pursue his remedies subject to the result of the suit filed for declaration O.S. No. 126/97 filed by the landlord. Aggrieved by the said order the tenant preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, the learned Counsel representing the Revision petitioner/tenant had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties, the evidence available on record and pointed out that in R.C. No. 310/89 there are five respondents and in the light of the findings recorded therein it cannot be said that the status of Janak Ram as landlord had been conclusively decided since only direction to pay rents to Janak Ram was made and hence the order of eviction is unsustainable. The learned Counsel also pointed out, the operative portion of the order made by the Appellate Authority and would contend that directing the eviction of tenant subject to the result of O.S. No. 126/97 also cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also explained the details relating to the suit filed by Janak Ram against one Osman. The learned Counsel also pointed out that it is only a cloud on the title of Janak Ram and in the light of the oral and documentary evidence the findings recorded by the Courts below cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority.