P K AGARWAL Vs. S RAJ MOHAN RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 27/4/2002 passed in R.A.No.133 of 1998 by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad confirming the order dated 5/3/1998 passed in R.C.No.695 of 1995 by the IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad.

(2.) Petitioners are the tenants and the respondent is the landlord in respect of the non-residential ground floor mulgi bearing No.5-3-486, situated at Old Topekhana, Opp. to Osmangunj, Hyderabad. The respondent filed R.C.No.695 of 1995 on the file of the IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, for eviction of the first petitioner herein - Pawan Kumar Agarwal, under Sections 10 (2) (v), 10 (2) (i) and 10 (2) (ii) (a) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rentand Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act') on the grounds that the tenant has secured alternative accommodation and ceased to occupy the building in question; that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rents and that the tenant has sub-let the premises in question. The learned Rent Controller by order dated 5/3/1998 ordered eviction of the tenant on the ground of sub-letting against which the landlord filed R.A.No.132 of 1998 and the tenant preferred R.A.No.133 of 1998 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The landlord filed the appeal insofar as rejecting his claim that the tenant has secured alternative accommodation and ceased to occupy the premises in question and committed wilfull default in payment of rents seeking eviction under Sections 10 (2) (v) and 10 (2) (i) of the Act. The tenant filed the appeal aggrieved by the finding that there was sub-letting.

(3.) During the pendency of the appeal R.A.No.133 of 1998, the tenant died and his legal representatives i.e. his two sons and wife, were brought on record as Appellants 2 to 4 and one Ashok Kumar, the power of attorney holder of the tenant also came on record as Appellant No.5 in R.A.No.133 of 1998. However, the legal representatives of the tenant were not brought on record in R.A.No.132 of 1998 filed by the landlord. Both the appeals were heard together and by common judgment dated 27-4-2002 the appeal of the landlord was allowed and the appeal of the tenant was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said common judgment insofar as dismissing the appeal R.A.No.133 of 1998 alone, the tenants preferred this civil revision petition and they have not preferred any revision against the R.A.No.132 of 1998.