M NABEED BASHA Vs. G MD ISMAIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Revision Petition No.4752 of 2002 is filed against the order and decree, dated 22/7/2002, passed in C.M.A.No.2 of 2002 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, reversing the decree and order, dated 7/12/2001, in R.C.C.No.5 of 1999 on the file of the Rent Controller, Kurnool and Civil Revision Petition No.4753 of 2002 is filed against the order and decree, dated 22/7/2002, passed in C.M.A.No.1 of 2002 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, reversing the decree and order, dated 7/12/2001, in R.C.C.No.4 of 1999 on the file of the Rent Controller, Kurnool.

(2.) Petitioners in both the petitions are the tenants in respect of the petition schedule property bearing Door No. 18-90, Nehru Road, Kurnool and the respondent is the landlord.

(3.) There is no dispute with regard to the relationship that the petitioners are the tenants and the respondent is the landlord. The tenants filed R.C.C.No.4 of 1999 on 20/5/1999 on the file of the Rent Controller, Kurnool, under Section 8(5) of the A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for brevity, 'the Act) seeking permission to deposit the rent for the months of February, March and April, 1999 and continue to deposit the future rents into the Court. The landlord filed R.C.C.No.5 of 1999 on the file of the same Court under Section 10(2) (i) and 10(3) (c) of the Act seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of wilful default in payment of the rent from December, 1998 onwards and on the ground that the said premises is bonafidely required for the personal use and occupation of the landlord. Counters have been filed and oral and documentary evidence has been adduced on either side. After considering the rival contentions the Rent Controller passed separate orders on the same day i.e., 7/12/2001 allowing R.C.C.No.4 of 1999 filed by the tenant, permitting him to deposit the rent for the months of February, March and April, 1999 onwards into the Court, and dismissed R.C.C.No.5 of 1999 holding that there was no wilful default in payment of rent for the months of December, 1998, January, February and March, 1999. As against the said order of the Rent Controller, the landlord filed C.M.A.Nos.l of 2002 and 2 of 2002 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kurnool and the Rent Control Appellate Authority allowed both the C.M.As. vide a common order dated 22-07-2002 holding that there is wilful default in payment of rent from December, 1998 onwards and that the Rent Controller ought not to have allowed the application of the tenant permitting to deposit the rent into Court. Insofar as the bona fide requirement of the premises in question is concerned both the Courts held that the premises is not bonafidely required by the landlord and as against the said finding no revision has been filed and therefore the questions that arise for consideration in these two petitions are: