NALIVELA KOMARAIAH Vs. GANNU NAGAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, against the order and decree of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal in CMA No.15/96 setting aside the order and decree of the learned Principal District Munsif, Warangal in RCC No.34/ 1984, dated 22-7-1996.

(2.) The petitioners are the tenants and respondents in RCC No.34/1984. An application was filed by the landlord Ravulapalli Basavalingam in RCC No.34/ J984 seeking eviction of the respondents/ tenants on the ground of sub-lease, wilful default and bona fide requirement. However, during the pendency of the application, the landlord died and consequently, the LRs were brought on record. The application was resisted by the tenants. One witness was examined for landlord and four witnesses were examined for tenants. Ex.A1 to A14 were marked for the landlord while Ex.B1 to B93 were marked for tenants. The learned Rent Controller after considering the evidence and the records found that all the grounds urged in the application for eviction were not established. Accordingly, dismissed the application by a judgment dated 22-7-1996. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the landlord carried the mater in appeal before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, appellate authority under the Act, in CMA No.15/1996. However, the learned appellate Court by orders dated 14-9-1998 set aside the judgment and decree of the Court below and allowed the appeal and directed to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises within sixty days from the date of receipt of the order. Against the said order of the appellate authority, the present Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenants.

(3.) It is urged by Sri Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the reversing order of the appellate Court was contrary to the evidence on record and the lower appellate Court did not consider the matter in a proper perspective and thus he committed errors apparent on the face of the record. He further submits that there was no evidence whatsoever at all to hold that the petitioners have sublet the premises to the 4th respondent firm. There was no wilful default in payment of rents. The appellate Court, however, confirmed the finding of the lower Court on the question of bona fide requirement, which held that the bona fide requirement was not established. However, the learned Counsel for the respondent-Landlord Sri J. V. Suryananyana Rao submits that the appellate Court has properly assessed the evidence and came to the conclusion that the subletting was established. It also found that the wilful default was established by the record itself and therefore such findings of the appellate Court cannot be interfered with under revisional jurisdiction of this Court. He further submits that it is not open for this Court to again reappreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion.