P. RAMACHANDRA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THE revision petitioner is the respondent in R. C. C. No. 1/78 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Kothagudem. The eviction was sought on the ground of wilful default iu the payment of reut and for bonafide occupation. The revision petitioner denied being a wilful defaulter or that the respondent landlord bonafide required the premises for his personal occupation. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge) held on merits that the respondent has made out both the grounds and have accordingly ordered eviction of the revision petitioner. These findings are not questioned in this revision. The revision petitioner also resisted the eviction on the ground that the A. P. Buildings (Lease, rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, is inapplicable to the buildings in question, on the ground that Kothagudem is a deemed municipality and not a municipality notified under Sec. 3 of the A. P. Municipalities Act. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate-Authority held that though kothagudem is not notified as a municipality under Sec. 3 of the A. P. Municipalities Act it is a deemed municipality under the laid Act and the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document