The court held that the tenant's conduct in withholding rent from December 1971 to March 1972 and from June 1972 to September 1972 amounted to wilful default, and that the landlords had a bona fide requirement of the premises for personal occupation.

IMMANENI PANDURANGA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE sole tenant is the petitioner herein. The eviction petition was filed in the year 1972 on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent and bona fide personal requirement. The learned Rent Controller holding that the ground of bonafide personal requirement was not established and that there is no wilful default in payment of rent, dismissed the eviction petition. On appeal, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada who is the appellate authority held that the firm of which the minor is a partner, requires the premises bonafide for personal occupation and that there is also wilful default in payment of rent. He accordingly allowed the appeal and ordered eviction.

( 2 ) WHEN the civil revision petition came up for hearing on an earlier occasion, k. Jayachandra Reddy, J. (as he then was) agreed with the appellate court holding that the premises is bona fide required f6r the occupation of the first landlord-firm (for short "the firm" ). Though the learned Judge observed that there is no categorical finding with regard to the wilful default for the disputed months of December, 1971, January, 1972 and February, 1972, dismissed the civil Revision Petition upholding the ground of bona fide personal requirement giving seven months time to the tenant to vacate the premises.

( 3 ) CHALLENGING that order in the revision, the tenant filed Civil Appeal no. 2969 of 1982 in the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court by an order dated 24-7-1987 while setting aside the order of the High Court remitted the matter back to the High Court with a direction that the High Court will call for a finding from the learned Rent Controller as to whether the landlord requires the premises in question for bona fide personal requirement having regard to all aspects. The landlord sought a further direction from the Supreme Court by filing I. A. No. l of 1990 in Civil Appeal No. 2969/1982. After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court directed this Court by an order dated 10th April, 1991 to consider the question of default either on the basis of the evidence already on record or after allowing the parties to let in additional evidence on the point. The Supreme Court also gave an option to this court to remit the case to the first appellate court for the aforesaid purpose.

( 4 ) IN pursuance of the directions given by the Supreme Court, this court called for a finding from the learned Rent Controller, Vijayawada with regard to the bonafide requirement of the landlords. By a subsequent order, this court called for a finding from the Principal Subordinate Judge i. e. , the appellate authority on the question of wilful default on the material available on record.

( 5 ) THE learned Rent Controller, Vijayawada submitted his finding dated 27-3-1989 to the effect that the requirement of the landlords is not a bona fide one. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada submitted his finding dated 4th December, 1991 that the first eviction petitioner-landlord is entitled to collect rents from 1-4-1972; that the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rents from 1-6-1972 to 30-9-1972; that the second eviction petitioner landlord is entitled to collect rent from 1-4-1971 till March, 1972 and that the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent for December, 1971 and from January, 1972 to March, 1972.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the tenant has taken two items of property on lease under a registered lease deed dated 1-6-1959 executed by two brothers Valluru Keshava Rao and V. V. Subba Rao; that valluru Keshava Rao filed H. R. C. No. 40 of 1967 on two grounds; that the tenant denied the right of the said Valluru Keshava Rao to carry on the litigation; that the said eviction petition was dismissed on 15-7-1968; that the appeal preferred against it was dismissed on 27-1-1971; that the revision preferred to this High court in C. R. P. No. 1264 of 1971 was also dismissed o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document