JOSYUL JAGAN MOHANDAS Vs. PYDA VENKTESAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners are the legal representatives of the landlady, Kalava' i Das. The landlady filed R.C.C. No. 31 of 1991 on the file of the Principal District Munsiffcum-Rent Controller, Vizianagaram praying for the relief of eviction. The learned Rent Controller recorded the evidence of P.W.1, R.Ws. 1 and 2, marked Exs.A-1 to A-4, Exs.B-1 to B-6 and Exs.C-1 to C-3 and ultimately ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the same, the tenants preferred rent control appeal R.C.A.No.1 of 2001 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Senior Civil Judge at Bobbili and the appellate authority allowed I.A.No. 159 of 2001 and received certain documen' but however, dismissed the I. A.No.245 2001 filed by the legal representatives of the landlady, the respondents in the appeal, and on appreciation of the evidence available on record reversed the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and allowed the appeal negativing the relief of eviction. Aggrieved by the same, the said legal representatives, the respondents in the appeal, had preferred this 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' forthe purpose of convenience). The revision petitioners also filed C.R.P.M.P.N0.5340 of 2005 narrating the subsequent events and the second respondent filed counter affidavit pleading no knowledge about certain facts and denying certain facts.

(2.) Sri T.S Anand, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioners had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the Rent Controller and also the appellate authority and would point out thatthe appellate authority had reversed the well considered findings of the learned Rent Controller. The learned counsel would contend that though the mother, the landlady is no more, the bona fide requirement as far as second son is concerned, it survives and the evidence of P. W. 1 is available on record in relation thereto. The learned counsel also would comment that there is no acceptable explanation for the payment of lumpsum amount by way of demand draft for a period of 11 months and a clear finding had been recorded by the learned Rent Controller and in the absence of any acceptable explanation on the part of the tenants, the legal representatives of the landlady are bound to succeed even on the ground of wilful default. The learned counsel also would comment that even otherwise the view expressed in relation to the applicability of Section 7 of the Act also cannot be sustained since the amount is said to have been paid undera promissory note and hence, the question of the landlady having advance amount with her would not arise at all. The learned counsel further commented that, at any rate, in the light of the subsequent events pleaded in C.R.P.M.P.No.5340 of 2005, the petitioners are bound to succeed.

(3.) Per Contra, Sri Ramlinga Swamy, the learned counsel representing the respondents-tenants would maintain that the appellate authority had recorded the reasons in detail and, in fact, the conduct of the parties, if taken into consideration, the lump sum payment by way of demand draft cannot be said to be wilful default. The learned counsel also explained in detail the applicability of Section 7 of the Act, in the facts and circumstances of the case and had pointed out the relevant findings in relation thereto. The learned counsel also would submit that during the lifetime of the landlady, the landlady had not chosen to examine herself and the second son also was not examined to prove the ground of bona fide personal requirement. Hence, the counsel would contend that the appellate authority had arrived at a correct conclusion in reversing the order of the learned Rent Controller.