Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : V.BHASKARA RAO
N.Ananda Rao - Appellant
Versus
P.Naga Anjeswara Rao - Respondent
Decided On : 03-28-97
Rent Control Act - Section 10 and 22 - Payment of rent - Scope of revisional jurisdiction - As landlord son is studying he wants to keep him in his sister s house and that premises is required for his sister and son - It lastly stated that tenant committed acts of waste - Tenant contested above eviction petition by denying all material averments - Landlord s title is neither admitted nor denied - Averment that premises was taken on lease by father of tenant from father of landlord and that tenancy is continued even after them is not disputed – Held, But at same time revision under Sec cannot be equated with an appeal - Revisional power conferred under Section also embraces an order passed by Appellate Authority - While considering provisions conferring revisional power couched in language similar to that contained in Section of Act Court has laid down that power conferred on High Court is essentially power of superintendence and despite wide language employed High court should not interfere with findings of fact subordinate authority merely because it does not agree with said findings - As regards subsequent default Single Judge of Court considered catena of decisions on question and case that can be made ground for eviction - Apart requirement of son of landlord both during period of education and appears to be genuine and there is no illegality or irregularity in judgments of both Courts below and there is no ground for court to interfere - Petition dismissed
( 1 ) THIS Revision Petition is filed against the judgment in R. C. A. No. 40/93 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam, confirming the order of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal District Munsif, Visakhapatnam in r. C. C. No. 135/88 dated 6-10-1988 holding that the revision petitioner-tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent and that the respondent- landlord requires the premises for a bona fide purpose i. e. self-occupation. The parties will be referred to as tenant and landlord.
( 2 ) THE landlord filed the eviction petition with the following averments. Originally, father of the tenant had taken the premises on lease from the father of the landlord. After the death of his father, the landlord became the absolute owner and the tenancy continued. The rent for the premises is Rs. 300/- per month payable before the first of every month. The tenant was irregular in payment of rents, so much so that he used to pay rents once in six months or eight months in spite of repeated protests and the landlord used to pass receipts. He has defaulted in payment of rent for October and November, 1988 and hence he has committed wilful default in payment of rents. Further, he sub-let the premises to one Ayyankala Mahalakshmi who is doing cloth business in wholesale and the tenant is collecting the amount from the subtenant. As the landlord s son is studying at Visakhapatnam, he wants to keep him in his sister s house in Visakhapatnam and that the premises is required for his sister and son. It is lastly stated that the tenant committed acts of waste. The tenant contested the above eviction petition by denying all the material averments. The landlord s title is neither admitted nor denied. The averment that the premises was taken on lease by father of the tenant from the father of the landlord and that the tenancy is continued even after them is not disputed. The allegation that the tenant was very irregular in payment of rents and used to pay once in eight months or six months in spite of repeated protests from the landlord is denied. On the contrary, it is averred that there was an oral agreement between the father of the landlord and father of the tenant and the same is continuing between the parties and accordingly, the tenant has to pay the rent to landlord whenever he visits the house of the tenant at Visakhapatnam from Anakapalli. The rent payable being Rs. 300/- per month is also not disputed. It is however added that it was originally rs. 25/- per month and the same is enhanced from stage to stage. It is denied that a portion of the premises was sub-let. The other ground of personal requirement, namely the petitioner s sister is residing in a rented house at visakhapatnam and that the son of the landlord and his sister require the house for their own occupation is also denied. Likewise, the last ground that he has committed acts of waste is also denied.
( 3 ) IN view of the above pleadings, the learned Munsif formulated the following points for consideration: (1) Whether the petitioner is entitled for an eviction order as prayed for on the grounds of (a) wilful default in payment of rent, (b) sub-lease, (c) bona fide requirement and (d) acts of waste; (2) To what order the petitioner is entitled to. During the enquiry, the landlord examined himself as P. W. I and got Exs. A-1 to A-3 marked. Ex. A-1 dated 29-11-1988 is Office copy of notice issued by the petitioner and Ex. A-2 dated 21-11-1988 is notice of respondent to petitioner seeking to intimate the name of the bank in which he has to deposit rents. Ex. A-3 is a Certified Copy of the ledger extract showing the deposits of rents by the tenant. On the other hand, the tenant examined himself as r. W. 1 and one A. Mahalakshminaidu, the alleged sub-tenant, as R. W. 2. He got Exs. B-1 to B-21 marked on his behalf. Ex. C-1 dated 22-8-1990 is a memo filed by the tenant s Counsel showing deposits of rents through challans from september 19
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.