B. K. SOMASEKHARA, J.

( 1 ) ALL these matters are between the same parties and have been the offshoots of certain common decisions between them by the trial Court and the first appellate Court, filed under various provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act . Actually they are between one P. Rajanna said to be a tenant in the demised premises and the owner Smt. K. Lalitha Reddy and her husband K. Venkataraniana Reddy who appears to be managing the transactions of his wife in relation to the premises. The proceedings of the trial Court (Rent Controller-cum-District Munsif, Madanapalle) and the appellate Court (Sub-Judge, Madanapalle) which led to the present cases in this Court are tabulated as hereunder in Table-A. The following Table-B indicates the details and particulars of the revision petitions filed in this Court, of each of the parties as against the decisions of the Courts below:-- As all the proceedings supra project from common orders-judgments of the trial Court and the appellate Court involving common questions of law and facts between the same parties, having heard them together, they are being disposed of by means of this common Judgment.

( 2 ) THE command of the convenience prompts us to refer to Smt. K. Lalitha Reddy and her husband K. Venkataramana Reddy as petitioners 1 and 2 and P. Rajanna, as respondent, as they were styled in the eviction petition -- R. C. C. 3/85 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-District Munsif, Madanapalle.

( 3 ) PETITIONER No. 1 is the wife of petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is the owner of the demised premises which is referred to as the schedule premises (non-residential building) bearing H. No. D. 14/137, T. M. Road, Madanapalle Municipality.

( 4 ) THE respondent claiming to be a tenant in the schedule premises at an agreed rent of Rs. 250/- per mensem alleged that he was paying the rent personally and also by way of demand drafts or through the messengers till March, 1983 and when he sent the rent for the month of April, 1983 by Money Order to petitioner No. 2, it was refused and returned back to him. Therefore, he sent a notice to petitioner No. 2 which was replied by him demanding higher rate of rent. He sent Rs. 500/- by money order covering the rent for the months of May and June, 1983 to petitioner No. 2 who refused to receive the same. Therefore, he had to file a petition under Section 8 (5) of the Act, seeking permission of the Court to deposit the rent every month at the rate of Rs. 250/ -. Petitioner No. 2 resisted the petition actually denying the respondent to be the tenant in the premises, denying the rent to be paid at Rs. 250/ -per mensem and instead, pleaded that one Pulla Reddy was a tenant in the premises and the respondent and one Venkata Reddy were unlawfully inducted into the schedule premises, that they proposed to pay a rental of Rs. 250/-per mensem and to deduct Rs. 100/-every month towards the repair charges of Rs. 15,000/- which was said to have been spent by them on the schedule premises, that he demanded Rs. 1,000/- per mensem towards rent for which they were not agreeable, Venkata Reddy did not continue in the premises and the respondent was sending Rs. 250/- per mensem to petitioner No. 2 under the circumstances, he committed default in paying rent consistently and his petition may be dismissed. In the meanwhile, petitioners filed the eviction petition against the respondent under Section 10 (2) (a) (ii) (b), (c) and (iii) of the Act alleging that he committed willful default in paying the rent, he sub-let the premises without the consent of the petitioner, he committed the acts of waste and damage to the schedule premises by opening a pit as a sump storing the drums by the side of the wall and that he used the premises for a different purpose than the one for which it was let out. The respondent resisted the eviction petition by denying the alleged willful default o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document