( 1 ) D. TALUPULU, the unsuccessful tenant both before the learned Rent Controller and the appellate authority had preferred these two C. R. Ps. , under Section 22 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act 1960, hereinafter, in short, referred to as the Act for the purpose of convenience. The said d. Talupulu died and his son D. A. Raju was brought on record as legal representative, who is further prosecuting these C. R. Ps. The respondents in C. R. P. No. 3351 of 1997, M. Venkata Raju and m. Shanta Kumari filed R. C. C. No. 2 of 1994 which was re-numbered as R. C. C. No. 271 of 1995 on the file of Rent Controller praying for eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule premises under Section 10 (1), 10 (2) (ii) (a) (b), 10 (3) of the Act. The tenant filed R. C. C. No. 67 of 1993, which was renumbered as R. C. C. No. 297 of 1995 under Section 8 of the Act praying for permission to deposit the rents. The learned rent Controller, Vishakapatnam after recording the evidence of P. W. I and R. W. 1 and marking Exs. A1 to A3, Ex. X1 and Ex. C1 and Exs. B1 to B19, ultimately ordered eviction granting two months time to vacate the premises and dismissed the R. C.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document