P. RAMACHANDRA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THE respondent in R. C. C. No. 3 of 1992 is the petitioner who suffered an order of eviction at the instance of respondents before the Rent Controller- cum-Principal District Musif, confirmed by the Subordinate Judge, narasaraopet.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT filed application under Section 10 of A. P. Buildings (Lease, rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 - hereinafter called the Act against the petitioner on grounds of default of payment of rent; causing damage to the premises; and also for personal requirement. It is the case of the respondents that the petition shedule premises originally belonging to one Rebba ramanamma @ Ramulu. The said Ramanamma executed a registered settlement deed dated 1-4-1982 conveying vested remainder in the schedule property to the first respondent, her daughter and her son, Kondaiah, after her life time. Later Kondaiah conveyed his share to the second respondent under a registered sale deed dated 7-3-1992. As Ramanamma died in december, 1991, respondents became jointly entitled to the schedule property.

( 3 ) IN the counter-affidavit, petitioner states that originally he took vacant site where there was only partly thatched and partly zinc shed, and set up foundry business which is being carried on by him. Rebba Ramanamma was not the original owner. Yenugula Surayya was the original owner, who executed a settlement deed dated 22-4-1950 in favour of Rebba Ramanamma who is his kept mistress to be enjoyed by her during her life time and in case children are born to her, the property should be enjoyed by her along with her children with equal rights. After the death of Ramanamma second respondent collected a sum of Rs. 1,200/- representing four months rent from december, 1991. The second respondent alone is not entitled to collect the rent.

( 4 ) ON the basis of the pleadings, the learned Rent Controller framed necessary issues. Respondents 1 and 2 were examined as P. Ws. 1 and 2 respectively. Petitioner was examined as R. W. 1. Yenugula Laxmi, one of the heirs of Surayya was examined as R. W. 2, besides examining R. W. 3. Exs. A-1 to A-5 were marked by respondents and Exs. B-1 to B-34 were marked on behalf of the petitioner.

( 5 ) ON a consideration of the entire material on record, the learned Rent controller found that the petitioner having admitted that he had paid rent to the second respondent for the period from December, 1991 to March, 1992 is estopped from denying the relationship between the second respondent and himself. The learned Rent Controller also found that the petitioner has obtained receipts (Exs. B-23 to B-34) for payment of rent till the end of January, 1995 which are created subsequently in collusion with Laxmi, Sister-in-law of the second respondent. Even assuming that rent was paid up to January, 1995, the petitioner had committed default in payment of rent from February, 1995 till the date of the judgment. The petitioner has also not filed an application under Section 9 (3) of the Act for permission to deposit rent into Court even after receiving legalnotice. It is also found that the requirement of respondents to carry on business in the petition schedule premises is bona fide.

( 6 ) ON appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge found that having paid four months rent to the second respondent in November, 1991, petitioner is not justified in not paying the rent thereafter. The evidence of R. W. 3 who has claimed to have convened Panchayat to resolve the dispute between the second respondent and Yenugula Lakshmi cannot be believed; so also the evidence of R. W. 2 - Yenugula Lakshmi, and Exs. B-2 to B-34 cannot be accepted. It is also a fact that the petitioner did not take steps to give reply to Ex. A-1 notice issued by respondents or take steps to deposit rent into Court. It is also found that respondents bona fide required the premises for personal requirement.

( 7 ) IN this revision, learned Counsel for the petitioner relying on a Division bench Judgment o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document