SEETARAMA GENERAL STORES AGENCIES Vs. K S SIVARAMAIYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-in R.C.CNo. 84 of 1988 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Vijayawada filed this Revision Petition against the order dated 10-4-1995 passed in C.M.A.No. 151 of 1994 on the file of the Prl. Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are: K.S.Sivaramayyar the original petitioner was the landlord of the upstair building bearing D.No. 11-44-15 and 16 situate in Kummari Street Vijayawada and the respondent is the tenant in the ground floor portion of the schedule building. The petitioner required the petition schedule building for his personal occupation to commence business in boarding. So he requested the respondent-tenant to vacate and deliver the petition schedule building for his proposed business, as the petitioner has no other building to commence the said business. The respondent-tenant promised to vacate the building by end of April, 1988,but he failed to vacate the said premises. Therefore the petitioner filed the petition for eviction.Later on the petitioner K.S. Sivaramayyer died. His legal representatives petitioners 2 to 6 were brought on record. During the life time of Sivaramayier, his evidence was recorded and the evidence of the respondent-tenant as R.W.1 was also completed. But the case is not closed. Subsequent to the death of original petitioner Sivaramayyer, petitioners 2 to 6 were brought on record as his legal representatives. At mat time petitioners 2 to 6 filed I.A.No. 2278 of 1994 under Order XVIII Rule 17-A and Section 151 CPC to re-open the evidence of the petitioners and permit them to adduce evidence on their behalf. The respondent-tenant contested the petition contending that the petitioners 2 to 6 are trying to put new evidence, as if the case is filed by them; that the legal representatives must succeed or fail on the basis of the original petitioner's case and that the legal representatives have no right to adduce new evidence at that stage. The trial Court, after considering the material on record and upon hearing counsel for both sides, opined that since the case is not closed and it is at the stage of trial, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent-tenant and for proper adjudication of the disputes between the parties, the petitioner must be allowed permitting the petitioners to put forth their case. Thus finding the trial Court allowed the petition and re-opened the case for adducing petitioners' evidence. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant carried the matter in appeal R.C. OM.A. No. 151 of 1994 before the Prl. Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada. The lower appellate Court, after hearing the counsel for both parties and after perusing the material on record, opined that the point whether the personal requirement is exclusively for the deceased petitioner for doing the business or for the family of the deceased petitioner is a question of fact which has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of the case which can be done only after the petitioners' evidence is dosed. Thus holding the lower appellate authority dismissed the appeal.

(3.) Assailing the said order of the lower appellate Court as incorrect and improper, the tenant preferred this revision petition under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act.