JAMMA BHAI Vs. ABDUL KAREEM DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of a proceeding under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. An application for eviction of the tenant was made, on several grounds ; it was alleged that there was wilful default in payment of rent as also the subletting of the building by the first respondent to the second respondent, the landlord also pleaded that he required the building for his personal occupation. The petition was resisted by the respondents who controverted tb.e fact alleged by the landlord. The Rent Controller allowed the application for eviction and the appellate authority also confirmed the order of eviction. This revision petition challenges the- legality of the order of eviction.

(2.) In support of this petition Sri Jeevan Reddy, learned counsel urged a number of contentions, bat in my opinion only one of them merits a scrutiny or consideration. He has called in question the findings in respect of wilful default and the sub-letting of the building, I am unable to agree with him that the concurrent findings of the two tribunals suffer from infirmities that can be corrected in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under the relevant statute. There is no impropriety or illegality that vitiates the findings on what are essentially question of fact.

(3.) He has laid considerable stress on the argument that the decision pronounced by the Rent Controller, after the death of the sole petitioner, is null and void. The order of the Rent Controller was pronounced on July, 9, 1965 but tne sole petitioner died earlier on 27-6-1965. The hearing of the petition was concluded about fpur months prior to the date of the judgment. The death of the sole petitioner was not notified to the Rent Controller. Counsel stated that no notice of the pronouncement of the decision was given in advance by the Rent Controller and the result was that the authority could have been appraised of the landlord. The order according to counsel is of no legal effect and there was no effective proceeding before the controller by reason of the death of the petitioner.