RAMA TRADING CO Vs. KOLLEPATA NOOKARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Rama Trading Company, Tuni, represented by its Managing Partner, filed the present C.R.P., under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter, in short, referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience). The respondent herein the petitioner in R.C.C. No.9/89 on the file of the Munsif Magistrate-Rent Controller, Tuni, filed the petition under Section 10 of the Act praying for eviction on the ground of denial of title, yet another ground of wilful default and also another ground of bona fide personal requirement. The learned Rent Controller by order dated 16-4-1996, on appreciation of the evidence of P.Ws.l and 2 and R.W.1 and Exs.P.l to P.11 and R.1 to R.17, answered all the points in favour of the respondent in the present C.R.P. the petitioner in the R.C.C., and ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner herein- the tenant filed R.C.A. No. 13/96 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority- cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada and the learned Judge-Appellate Authority confirmed the findings relating to the denial of title and wilful default but had reversed the finding relating to bona fide requirement on the ground that sufficient evidence had not been adduced in this regard. Aggrieved by the same, the present C.R.P. is preferred.

(2.) Sri V.L.N.G.K. Murthy, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner would submit that the evidence relating to wilful default is very vague and the respondent in the C.R.P.-petitioner in the R.C.C. is not sure of the payments and even otherwise, by the date of filing of the eviction petition, all the rents had been paid and hence on that ground the eviction itself cannot be prayed for. The learned Counsel also would submit that the respondent herein and his brothers were coming at irregular intervals and collecting the amounts and in this view of the matter also, this cannot be styled as wilful default. The learned Counsel placed reliance on Vinukonda Venkata Ramana v. Mootha Venkateswara Rao, 2001 (6) ALD 27 (FB) = AIR 2002 AP 52 and Chordia Automobiles v. S. Moosa and others, 2000 (4) ALD 49 (SC) = (2000) 3 SCC 282, in this regard. The learned Counsel further submitted that there is no unequivocal denial of title but what was contended by the revision petitioner-respondent in the R.C.C., is to the effect that the brothers were coming and collecting rents and in that view of the matter, the said stand was taken and taking the conduct of the parties into consideration, it cannot be said that the revision petitioner- tenant had denied the title of the landlord.

(3.) On the contrary Mr. Hari Sreedhar, the learned Counsel would submit that not only there was wilful default from 1988 onwards, the same was continued even subsequent thereto and concurrent findings had been recorded by both the Courts below in this regard. Even otherwise, the Counsel would say that the procedure as contemplated by the Act and the Rules made there-under had to be followed in relation to deposit of rents and hence, the said payment cannot be said to be valid payment in the eye of law so as to negative the stand relating to the ground of wilful default. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also by the Appellate Authority and would contend that in view of the concurrent findings, the C.R.P. is liable to be dismissed. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in N.D. Thandani (dead) by LRs. v. Arnavaz Rustom Printer and another, 2004 (1) ALD 29 (SC) = AIR 2004 SC 495.