K NARAYANA RAO Vs. A NARASLMHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful landlords filed this revision petition challenging the judgment in R.C.A. No.1/1988 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Tenali, dated 9-7-1990, who dismissed the appeal confirming the order of dismissal of the eviction petition in R.C.C. No.36/1984 on the file of Rent Controller, Tenali. The parties will be referred to as the landlords and tenant.

(2.) The landlords-revision petitioners filed the eviction petition under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, for short the 'Act', on two grounds viz., (1) wilful default in payment of rent, and (2) bona fide personal requirement for carrying on their gold and silver business. It is averred that the joint family of Gurram Alivelu Mangamma and her two sons sold the house including the demised shop on 15-5-1984 for a valuable consideration to the landlords herein for carrying on gold and silver business by installing the required machinery. The tenant was already in occupation of the demised shop and the landlords informed him about the said requirement. It is also averred that the tenant has not paid the rent and he became a defaulter and they got a registered notice issued requesting him to vacate the premises, but he sent a reply with false allegations. The tenant resisted the petition stating that the petition schedule premises is part of a non-residential building and he has been sending the rent to the original owners who were residing at Tirupati by money order and the money order for May, 1984, was returned on 13-6-1984. His enquiries revealed that the landlords herein purchased the building including the shop, but the sale was not intimated to him. However, he tendered rent for May, 1984 to the Manager of the joint family of the landlords, but he refused to receive the same unless it is enhanced to Rs.150/- per month and hence the rent of Rs.70/- was sent to the said landlords by money order on 15-6-1984 and he also sent a notice requesting him to accept the rent, but both the notice and money order were returned. He then filed R.C.C. No.20/1984 under Section 8 of the Act seeking permission to deposit the rents. The matter was adjusted between the parties and the landlords expressed readiness to receive the rents directly. Thus, R.C.CNo.20/1984 was dismissed with the consent of the parties.

(3.) During the enquiry, one of the landlords, the revision petitioner No.2 examined himself as P.W.I and he got Exs.A-1 to A-3 marked. Ex.A-1 dated 15-5-1984 and Ex.A-2 dated 10-5-1984 are registered sale deeds executed in favour of the revision petitioners. Ex.A-3 dated 4-4-1984 is certificate of recognition as goldsmith. The respondent-tenant examined himself as R.W.1 and he got Exs.B-1 to B-3 marked. Ex.B-1 dated 14-7-1987 is refused registered notice and Ex.B-2 is the returned money order coupon. Ex.B-3 dated 15-6-1984 is office copy of reply notice issued by the tenant. On a scrutiny of the above oral and documentary evidence, the learned Rent Controller held that the landlords in occupation of a non-residential building are not entitled to seek possession of another non-residential building in occupation of the tenant, and accordingly the eviction petition has been dismissed with costs. Aggrieved by the above order, the landlords carried the matter in appeal to the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tenali, who affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller. Hence this revision petition.