ADAPA SANTHARAM PETITIONERS Vs. SAIT NATHMAL MANIK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these three Revision Petitions common question of facts and law arises and hence, 1 am disposing of the same by this common judgment. I refer to the ranking of the parties as arrayed in the trial Court.

(2.) The proceedings arise under the A.P. Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. (Hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioners in C.R.P. No. 520 of 1992 are the original tenants. They have challenged the order of eviction passed against them on the ground of default in paying arrears of rent in R.C.C. No. 80 of 1983 on the file of the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsiff), Rajahmundry, dated 15/10/1990; before the lower appellate authority i.e., sub-Judge, Rajahmundry in R.C.A. No. 20 of 1990. To this R.C.A. No. 20 of 1990, the landlord had filed cross-objections challenging the order of the Rent Controller in refusing eviction on the ground of alternative accommodation secured by the tenants. The lower appellate Court dismissed R.C.A. No. 20 of 1990 and allowed the cross-objections and thereby ordered eviction of the tenants not only on the ground of default in paying arrears of rent, but also on the ground that the tenants secured alternative accommodation. Being aggrieved by the same, the tenants filed the petition in C.R.P. No. 520 of 1992.

(3.) C.R.P. No. 521 of 1992 is also filed by the tenant. The tenant had filed R.C.C. No. 10 of 1983 before the Rent Controller under Section 8(5) of the Rent Control Act seeking permission of the Court to deposit the arrears of rent into Court and the said application was rejected. Being aggrieved by the same, the tenant had preferred an appeal before the lower appellate authority in R.C.A. No. 19 of 1990. The lower appellate Court dismissed the same. Hence, the tenant has preferred this C.R.P. No. 521 of 1992 before this Court.