GOVLNDARAJULU V Vs. T R BRABHMARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the judgment and decree passed in R.C.A.No.5/1987 by the Principal Subordinate Judge-cum-Rent Control Appellate Authority, Srikakulam reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Rent Controller-cum-Principal District Munsif, Srikakulam in R.C.C.No.10/1977.

(2.) The petitioner is the Respondent before the Rent Controller and Appellant before the appellate authority. For the sake of convenience, the parties are herein referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

(3.) It is necessary to narrate certain facts before dealing with the Revision Petition. The petitioner. (Sri Thayi Ranga Brahma Rao) filed R.C.C. No.10/1977 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal District Munsif, Srikakulam under Section 10(2)(i) and 6 (sic.(vi)) and Section 10(3)(l)(a) (sic.l0(3)(a)(i)(a)) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act. It was the case of the petitioner that he was the owner of the petition schedule building comprising of Door No.8-12-15 and 8-12-16. He was also the owner of other buildings bearing Door No.8-12-13 and 8-12-14 in Ananthapallivari Street of Srikakulam Town. However, we are concerned in this case with only Door No.8-12-15 and 8-12-16. It was the case of the petitioner that the Respondent No.l was the tenant of these two houses. The premises was let out to the Respondents in the year 1972. Initially, the rent was fixed at Rs.75/- per month in respect of Door No.8-12-15 and Rs.100/- in respect of the premises bearing No.8-12-16. The rent was enhanced with effect from 1-6-1974 @ Rs.100/- and Rs.125/- respectively for the aforesaid premises. The 1st Respondent was the son-in-law of the elder brother of the petitioner and there was no written agreement of tenancy between the parties. However, the Respondent No.1 paid only a sum of Rs.700/- and failed to pay the accumulated rent for the last several years. By 1-8-1977 the rent payable was Rs.11,877/-. Thus, he committed wilful default in payment of rent. It is also the case of the petitioner that he retired from service and he required the premises for his personal occupation. To the notice sent by the petitioner, a reply was received with untenable contentions.