S. NAGALAKSHMI Vs. BONDA JAGAN MOHAN RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The petitioner is the tenant whereas the respondent is the landlord. The respondent herein filed RCC.No.33 of 2011 for eviction of the petitioner/tenant the ground of wilful default and when the said application was allowed by order dated 20.6.2014 by the learned Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, the petitioner herein preferred R.C.A.No.4 of 2014 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. The said appeal was dismissed by order dated 6.2018. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) The respondent herein filed petition Under Sec. 10(2) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 before the Rent Controller. In the petition, it is stated that the schedule property originally belongs to his father who leased out the property to the petitioner herein under a lease khararnama. As per the said khararnama, the lease period is for five years from 16.1995 to 12.6.2000 and it was agreed to extend the said period by another period of five years upto11.6.2005 with enhancement of Rs. 100.00 per month on the existing rent. Though the initial rent was Rs. 450.00 it was enhanced to Rs. 550.00 as on the date of filing of the petition. The respondent paid a sum of Rs. 5,000.00 as advance and undertook to pay the rent regularly on first of every month for the succeeding months. The tenant has to pay the electricity charges of the petition schedule property. But the petitioner herein committed default in paying the rents regularly and she has been paying the rents according to her own convenience. The tenant was maintaining a hand book and taking signature of the landlord as an acknowledgement of payment of rents. It was also alleged that the tenant installed flour mill in the petition schedule property violating the terms of lease khararnama and by virtue of installation of the flour mill, the property got damaged and the life span of the building had come down due to vibrations. The father of the respondent herein died in the year 2003 and after his death, the respondent herein became the absolute owner of the petition schedule property. The petitioner herein, as tenant, filed R.C.C. No. 5 of 2004 against the landlord before the Rent Controller, Nellore, seeking permission to deposit the rent of the petition schedule property. In spite of several demands made by the respondent herein, when the petitioner was notvacating the premises, the petition was filed seeking an order to evict from the petition schedule property by the petitioner.