MEESALA SRINIVASA RAO Vs. ADAPA KRISHNA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlady. R.C.C.No. 01 of 1998 was filed by the landlady on the file of learned Rent Controller/Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari district, seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of willful default in payment of rents and that the petition schedule premises is required bona fide for additional accommodation of the medical business, was dismissed by the order dated 21-01-2002. Aggrieved by the same, the landlady filed C.M.A.No. 14 of 2002 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem and the appellate court, by the order dated 21-12-2005, allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the learned Rent Controller and ordered eviction of the tenant on the ground that the tenant has committed willful default in payment of rents and also on the ground that the petition schedule premises is required bona fide by the landlady. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant filed this civil revision petition.

(2.) Sri C.B. Rammohan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the tenant submitted that the learned Rent Controller rightly considered rival contentions and dismissed the eviction petition. But the appellate court, had erroneously allowed the appeal on the ground that there was willful default in payment of rents as the rents deposited in the suit filed by the tenant cannot be treated as the rents payable under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short the 'Act') and therefore there is a willful default in payment of rents and that the petition schedule premises is required bona fide. It is contended that the vendor of the landlady mortgaged the petition schedule property in favour of the tenant by three registered mortgage deeds and according to the clauses of the mortgage deeds, the landlord cannot alienate the petition schedule property and therefore there is no relationship of the landlady and tenant and the learned Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petition. Sri T. Durga Prasada Rao, learned counsel for the landlady contended that the Rent Appellate Court rightly allowed the eviction petition.

(3.) The questions that arise for consideration are as to whether the landlady was stepped into the shoe of her vendor, who admittedly mortgaged the petition schedule property in favour of the tenant; and if that be so, whether the landlady can be treated as landlord within the definition of the provisions of the Act; and whether the tenant, who is a mortgagee continues to be the tenant of the landlord; whether the petition schedule premises is required bona fide by the landlady for opening another shop for the landlady's family business in the pharmaceuticals in addition to the medical shop already they have got in the licensed premises.