P. RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition has come up before us on a reference made by our learned brother T. N. C. Rangarajan J. , who felt that there is conflict between two decisions rendered by Justice Ramachandra Raju in Nagappa v. Krishnasa, 1971 (2) An. WR 141 and the decision rendered by Justice Venkatrama Sastry in Shankar Rao v. Ramakrishna Rao Hulsulkar, 1974 (1) APLJ (SN) 22; regarding interpretation of Section 10 (3) (a) (i) (b) of A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act 1960 hereinafter called the Act . Interpreting this provision, Ramachandra Raju J, observed the word instead occurring in clause (b) should be read as "in addition to"; while Justice Venkatrama Sastry felt the word means instead . Justice Venkatrama Sastry doubted the interpretation placed by Justice Ramachandra Raju and Justice Rangarajan shared the said doubt. Hence he made the reference.

( 2 ) BEFORE answering the reference, it is necessary to briefly narrate relevant facts which gave rise to this reference. The respondent-landlady filed an application for eviction of appellant on three grounds viz that the appellant has committed wilful default in payment of ren

Click Here to Read the rest of this document