TANGUTURI SEETHARAMAIAH Vs. PULIPATI PADMAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar representing Sri A. Satyanarayana, the learned Counsel for revision petitioner and Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, the learned Counsel for respondent.

(2.) Respondent herein is the petitioner in R.C.C.No.159/97 on the file of RentController, Vijayawada (here-in-after she will be referred to as 'landlady' for the purpose of convenience). The revision petitioner hereintenant is the respondent in R.C.C.No. 159/97. The learned Rent. Controller negatived the relief both on the grounds of wilful default and additional accommodation on appreciation of the evidence available on record i.e., the evidence of P.W. 1 - the husband of the landlady and R.W.1-the tenant and Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-7 and Ex.B-1 to Ex. B-3. The landlady aggrieved by the same had carried the matter by way of appeal R.C.C.M.A.N0.57/99 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum- Prinicpal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawadaa and the Appellate Authority recorded certain findings and arrived at a conclusion that the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller relating to wilful default cannot be sustained and accordingly set aside the said findings but howeverconfirmed the findings relating to the ground of additional accommodation especially in the light of the relative or undue hardship. Aggrieved by that portion of theorder, reversing the ground of wilful default and ordering eviction, the tenant had carried this matter by way of this present revision under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'Act' for the purpose of convenience).

(3.) Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, the learned Counsel representing the tenant had taken this Court through the factual aspects, the date of purchase and the subsequent events and how the tenant was depositing rents either inthesuitO.S.No.338/97or in the R.C.C.filed by the tenant praying for permission to deposit the rents. The learned Counsel had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller in relation to the ground of wilful default and would comment that the Appellate Authority, after the matter was reserved for orders, had called for the ledger extract, verified the same and recorded certain findings and this would amount to not affording opportunity to the tenant to explain his stand relating to the same. The learned Counsel would maintain that this procedure adopted by the Appellate Authority cannot be sustained. Further the learned Counsel would maintain that even otherwise though there appears to be some delay relating to one month, in the light of the explanation given by the tenant, the same cannot be said to be wilful default. The Counsel also explained the conduct of the parties and would contend that in the light of the fact that in the month of April the tenant had in fact invoked the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller under Section 8(5) of the Act, this would clearly go to show the anxiousress of the tenant to make deposit of rents. The Counsel while commenting aboutthe additional accommodation would contend that inasmuch as the concurrentfindings had been recorded on the ground of the relative hardship to be established in relation to additional accommodation, the said findings need not be disturbed by this Revisional Court.