P APPALANARASAMMA Vs. CHINTHATI BHASKARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is filed by the plaintiff appellant. He filed a suit against the defendant tenant for tviction and for vacant possession of the Suit house and for mesne profits. The plaintiff is the owner of the plaint schedule house. According to him, it was constructed after 26--8-1957 and therefore the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 are not applicable to the suit house. The defendant took the bouse on lease in 1964 on a monthly rental of Rs. 40/-for 11 months. The defendant paid rent upto January, 1973. The plaintiff issued a notice to him on 1-7-73 terminating the tenancy by the end of July, 1973 and asking the defendant to vacate the premises by that date and also demanding the rent dated from 1-1-73. The defendant issued a reply on 3-8-73 and he also sent an amount of Rs.280/-by draft for the period from 1-1-1973 till 31-7-1973 at she rate of Rs.40/per mon h. For the subsequent periods the rents wers deposited into Court The plaintiff also contended that he needed the building for his personal use.

(2.) The petition was resisted by the defendant on a number of grounds. It is unnecessary for me to refe rto all of them,

(3.) The principal District Munsif, Vijayanagaratn held that the plaintiff failed to establish that the building was constructed after 26-8-1957 and therefore the provisions of the Aridhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 did not apply to the suit building. He held that the defendant did not commit wilful dejauli in payment of rent and therefore the notice dated 1-7-73 given by the plaintiff to the defendant terminating the tenancy was not valid and binding up on the defendant. He found that the plaintiff did not require the suit house for his personal use or occupation. In the result he held that the SUK was not maintainable and that the plaintiff was not entitled to vacate possession of the suit building and therefore he dismissed the suit.