SEETHARAMA RAJU LINGARAJU Vs. GOVINDARAJULA ANNAPURNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions are filed against the orders of the appellate Court granting stay pending Rent Control Appeals on condition that the appellants therein deposit the rents men* tioned in the orders.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the respondent's daughter-in-law is the daughter of the petitioner herein and as the son of the respondent left the house and his whereabouts are not known, the daughter-in-law of the respondent along with her children is living in the suit premises and the petitioner herein is living in the suit premises to look after her and her children as there are no male members. The respondent filed two eviction petitions claiming that the petitioner is a tenant. The Rent Controller ordered eviction of the petitioner. Against the said orders the petitioner filed appeals in the appellate court and those appeals are pending. Pending the appeals, the petitioner sought for stay of eviction. The appellate court granted stay on condition that the petitioner deposits arrears of rent. Against the said orders these two revisions are fifed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant and the petitioner's daughter is the daughter- in-law of the respondent and she along with her children is residing in the suit premises and the petitioner is residing with his daughter to look after her and her children. The petitioner's daughter has no property and no amount was paid by the respondents son for the maintenance of the petitioner's daughter and her children and therefore they are not in a position to pay rent or arrears of rent. The learned counsel further urged that if the order of the appellate court is not set aside the daughter of the petitioner along wrth her children will be thrown out of the premises and the same would cause irreparable loss.