(1.) Heard Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, the learned Counsel for the Revision petitioner and Sri Nandigama Krishna Rao, the learned Counsel representing the respondents.
(2.) Facts in nutshell: The unsuccessful tenant in R.C.C.No.18/88 on the file of learned Rent Controller, Tenali and R.C.A.No.14/92 on the file of Appellate Authority/Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali had preferred the present Civil Revision Petition under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, in short hereinafter referred to as "Act" for the purpose of convenience.
(3.) One Kothamasu Sarawatamma, the landlady; filed R.C.C.No.18/88 on the file of learned Rent Controller, Tenali on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents. The learned Rent Controller recorded the evidence of P.W.1, R.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-3 and Ex.B-1 and came to the conclusion that the ground of wilful default had been established by the landlady and ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful tenant carried the matter by way of Appeal R.C.A.No.14/92 on the file of Appellate Authority/Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali. In view of the fact that the said Kothamasu Saraswatamma, the landlady, died, P.W.1, the husband of the landlady Kothamasu Ramakoteswararao and also the other legal representatives of the said deceased landlady were brought on record. Before the Appellate Authority, on behalf of the appellant, several receipts Exs.B-2 to B-36 were marked. The Appellate Authority on appreciation of the evidence available on record and taking into consideration the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the Appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the unsuccessful tenant. The legal representatives of the original landlady shown as respondents 1 to 3 in the present Revision, hereinafter would be referred to as landlords for the purpose of convenience.