PERLE VENKATESWARLU Vs. GADAMSETTY BADARI NARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of the learned Sub-Judge, Ongole in R.C.A.10 of 1992 dated 24-1-1997 dismissing it and confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller and District Munsif, Ongole in R.C.C.11/1986 dated 30-3-1992 is challenged.

(2.) The petitioners being the tenants of the demised premises of which the respondents are claiming to be the owners, are seeking restoration of amenity, a passage to the demised premises which is said to have been blocked by the respondents by putting a lock to the door. The demised premises is an open verandah or a portion in front of the building belonging to the respondents which was being used by the petitioners for carrying on the business in metals. The demised premises described in portion of door No.23-1-3-37, Gandhi Nagar, Ongole. The Respondent No.2 Smt. Gadamsetti Hymavathi was the original owner of the suit properly. She sold it to Respondent No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 is said to be the original tenant ofwhom, Petitioners 2 and 3 are the legal representatives. It was pleaded that the Petitioner No.l was the tenant of Respondent No.2 in the demised premises and continued as such till the date of the petition. The petitioner alleged that on 19-1-1986 the Respondent No.l suddenly bolted the door of the scheduled properly inside and locked it outside and cut off the petitioner's basic amenity of entrance into the scheduled property. It appears that there was a show case, a wooden bench, cash box, photos of goods eta belonging to the petitioner remained inside the demised premises and the show case conlained gold, silver articles, pearls and several other items as per the worth given in the petition amounting to about Rs. 15,000.00. Therefore, the petitioner sought for restoration of the amenity under Section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act'). It was resisted by the respondents denying the relationship of land-lord and tenant, denying the possession of the petitioners in the demised premises and finally denying that there was any amenity as such, much less it was closed by the respondents.

(3.) The learned Rent Controller held an enquiry into the controversies wherein both parties led oral evidence and some documentary evidence comprised in ocular testimony of PWs.l and 3 and RWs.l to 3 and the documents Exs. Al to A4 and Ex.Bl respectively. The learned Rent Controller held the question of relationship of land-lord and tenant between the parties in the negative and also amenity in the negative and dismissed the petition. The unsuccessful petitioners took the matter in appeal before the learned Sub-Judge and after hearing both sides and with the same materials and reassessment, the learned Sub-Judge affirmed the decision of the learned Rent Controller, but, directed the petitioners/appellants to take their belongings within the demised premises within one month from the date of the order. Aggrieved by that the petition is filed.