PATANGY SOMESWARA RAO Vs. GOLUGURI TATA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in R.C.C. No. 10 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Vizianagaram, filed the present civil revision petition under Section 22 of Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) Respondent No.l in R.C.C. No. 10 of 1995 died and respondent Nos.2 to 4 were brought on record as legal representatives of respondent No.l in LA. No.665 of 1997, dated 12-2-1998. The said R.C.C. was filed for eviction of tenant on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent from the month of January, 1995, to July, 1995, and also on the ground of bona fide requirement of personal use and occupation and yet another ground of composite lease agreement. The learned Rent Controller recorded the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, RWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-13 and Exs.B-1 to B-36 and ordered eviction only on the ground of wilful default. Aggrieved by the same, the legal representatives of the tenant carried the matter by way of appeal in R.C.A. No.3 of 2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge- cum-Rent Control Appellate Authority, Vizianagaram, and the Appellate Authority reversed the said order and allowed the appeal holding that the tenant had not committed wilful default. The petitioners- landlords, aggrieved by the same, preferred the present civil revision petition.

(3.) Sri P.R. Prasad, learned Counsel representing the petitioners had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the appellate authority and would contend that the other ground of bona fide personal requirement though specifically raised, the same had not been considered despite the fact that the evidence is available on record. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller in relation to the ground of wilful default and would contend that while reversing the same, the Appellate Authority had not considered all the aspects. The non- production of ledger extract and proof in relation to the payment of rent also had been urged before this Court.