AKKALA DURGA RAO Vs. MANIKONDA DURGA ANJANEYULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful tenant, being aggrieved of the reversing orders, filed these C.R.Ps. C.R.P.No.3095/2001 is filed by Akkala Durga Rao and no doubt, it is stated that Akkala Durga Rao in his individual capacity cannot pray for permission to deposit rents inasmuch as M/s. Suvarna Iron & Steel Traders, rep. by its managing partner Sri Akkala Durga Rao is the tenant. The other 2 C.R.Ps., are filed by M/s. Suvarna Iron & Steel Traders, rep. by its managing partner Sri Akkala Durga Rao. Akkala Durga Rao in his individual capacity filed R.C.C.No.111/93 on the file of Rent Controller, Vijayawada, praying for permission to deposit rents from March, 1993 onwards into Court and before the learned Rent Controller none of the parties were examined but however the learned Rent Controller allowed the petition granting permission to the petitioner to deposit rents @ Rs.300/- per month without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and also directed the parties to bear their own costs. Respondent in the said R.C.C., the landlord, carried the matter by way of appeal R.C.C.M.A.NO.27/95 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Appellate Authority under A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, Vijayawada, and before the Appellate Authority Ex.A-1 and Exs.B-1 to B-7 were marked and the appeal was allowed on the ground that Akkala Durga Rao is not the tenant and hence, he cannot file a petition under Section 8 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (here-in-after referred to as 'the Act', in short, for the purpose of convenience). Aggrieved by the same, C.R.P.No.3095/2001 was filed by Akkala Durga Rao in his individual capacity.

(2.) The landlord filed old R.C.C.No.74/93 renumbered as R.C.C.No.173/96, on the file of Rent Controller, Vijayawada. praying for eviction of the tenant M/s. Suvarna Iron & Steel Traders, rep. by its managing partner Sri Akkala Durga Rao on the ground of wilful default and likewise, the landlord filed old R.C.C.No. 128/94, renumbered as R.C.C. No.249/96 on the file of Rent Controller, Vijayawada, praying for eviction on the ground of wilful default for subsequent period as against the tenant M/s.Suvarna Iron & Steel Traders, rep. by its managing partner Sri Akkala durga Rao. The landlord was unsuccessful before the learned Rent Controller and aggrieved by the same, he had carried the matter by way of appeals R.C.C.M.A.N0.5/98 and R.C.C.M.A. No. 135/97 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Appellate Authority underthe Act at Vijayawada, and the aforesaid orders made in the R.C.Cs., had been reversed and aggrieved by the same, M/s. Suvarna Iron & Steel Traders, rep. by its managing partner Sri Akkala Durga Rao preferred C.R.P. No.2321/2002 and C.R.P.No.2322/2002, respectively.

(3.) Sri Ramakrishna, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner in all the C.R.Ps., had taken this court through the reasons recorded by the learned Rant Controller and would contend that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no default much less wilful default since the tenant has been prompt in payment of rents and the landlord had avoided the receipt of rents so as to make it a ground of eviction and the tenant had invoked the jurisdiction of the learned Rent Controller under Section 8 (5) of the Act and has been depositing the rents and, hence, there is no wilful default, at all. The learned counsel also explained about the issuance of bearer cheques and the evidence available on record and also the conduct of the parties. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the periods of default wherein the tenant is said to have committed default and had explained the facts and circumstances and would contend that even if there was some delay, the same was due to conduct of the landlord and hence, the same cannot be styled as wilful default. The learned Counsel also pointed out to certain portions of the evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1 as well.