TUUNUGUNTLA ENTERPRISES Vs. MAJETI VENKATA RAMAKOTI MUTYALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision has arisen out of rent controller -appellate authority's confirmation order of rent controller for eviction of the tenant on the ground of wilful default. The revision petitioner is thus the unsuccessful tenant as respondent in RCC No. 46 of 2006. It is the second round of litigation, after the earlier civil suit filed after quit notice issued under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, 'TP Act') was ended in dismissal mainly on the point of jurisdiction holding the relationship of the landlord and the tenant not covered by the TP Act but governed by the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, 'Rent Control Act').

(2.) It was therefrom under Sec. 10 of the Rent Control Act was filed. No doubt from perusal of the prayer in the rent control case it did not specifically state as to for bona fide requirement or from wilful default the eviction was sought, however reading of the eviction petition with prayer it is clear that solely on the ground of wilful default the eviction petition was filed. The tenant contended in opposing the eviction petition that there is no wilful default and the rent was paying and accepting (sic. being paid and accepted).

(3.) In fact, after the evidence covered by the petitioner as P.W.1 and the respondent as R.W.1 with reference to Exs.A.1 to A.5 and Exs.B.1 to B.5 respectively, the Rent Controller, vide order dated 23.03.2009, allowed the RCC with costs, directing the respondent/tenant to vacate the schedule premises within two months by putting landlord into possession, on said ground of wilful default.