IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Bandaru Syamsunder, J.
Pentakota Anjaneyulu – Appellant
Versus
Mopada Srinu – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.633 of 2015
Decided On : 18-11-2022
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -Section 115 -Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 -Section 22 - Rent Control Act, 1960 -Section 10 (ii)(iii), 2 (vi), 8, 10, 22 - Whether Order under challenge is sustainable and tenable and whether same warrants any interference of this court under Section 22 of Rent Control Act –Held, This Court while by invoking jurisdiction under Section 22 of Rent Control Act as to consider whether findings of appellate Judge suffers from any inherent defect or are based on inadmissible or are irrelevant materials or are perverse - This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 22 of Act though cannot re-appreciate evidence can examine whether any inadmissible or irrelevant material is taken into consideration –Ordered Accordingly.
ORDER :
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 22 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called in short “Rent Control Act”) against the Orders passed R.C.A. 3 of 2011, dated 10.11.2014 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Tribunal-cum-Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, wherein and whereby learned appellate Judge allowed appeal filed by the respondent/tenant setting aside the orders passed by learned Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, in R.C.C.No.4 of 2006, dated 01.04.2011 and dismissed eviction petition filed by the appellant.
2. The revision petitioner filed R.C.C.No.4 of 2006 in respect of thatched house bearing D.No.8-12-4 in Vizianagaram Town. The revision petitioner filed petition against the respondent before the Rent Controller under Section 10 (ii) and (iii) of Rent Control Act seeking eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule property on the ground of willful default and bona fide requirement stating that he is landlord of petition schedule thatched house along with vacant site bearing D.No.8-12-4, in T.S.No.1073/C.1 situated in lower tank bund road in Santhapet, South ward, Vizianagaram. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent approached his father Mr.P.Suryanarayana in the month of March, 1995 and requested him to let out the petition schedule house for a period of 11 months which he needed it for his residence and also for doing business in cement ventilators which agreed by the father of the petitioner and let out house and vacant site to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.300/-, which has to be paid on the first day of every succeeding English Calendar month and the tenancy was oral for a period of 11 months from April, 1995. The petitioner submits that it was also agreed between his father and the respondent that the respondent should not cause any acts of waste or damage and no major or minor repairs should be executed without permission of his father which agreed by the respondent and took the thatched house along with vacant site on lease. The petitioner alleged that the respondent has not paid the rents regularly due to that his father demanded the respondent to vacate from petition schedule property and after expiry of lease period of 11 months when his father asked the respondent to vacate from petition schedule property, who told him that he did not get a suitable accommodation and prolonged the matter till the end of the year, 2002 and thereafter when father of the petitioner asked the respondent to vacate petition schedule property and hand over vacant possession and then the respondent filed suit in O.S.No.59 of 2003 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram, seeking permanent injunction wherein he obtained ex parte decree as father of the petitioner said to be fell ill and not contested the suit and thereafter he died. It is also the contention of the petitioner that he became absolute owner of the property as plaint schedule property fell to his share in oral partition with his family members and filed petition for eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule property. The respondent/tenant filed written statement before Rent Controller denying averments in the petition filed by the petitioner. It is the contention of the respondent that he took the petition schedule property on lease from the father of the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.300/- under on oral lease in the year, 1995 and since then he has been regularly paying the rents every month to the father of the petitioner but the father of the petitioner was not in the habit of issuing receipts for the rents paid by him. He alleged that due to escalation of prices of immovable properties in petition schedule locality, the father of the petitioner openly proclaimed that he will evict him from the petition schedule property by using criminal force due to that he filed O.S.No.59 of 2003
M. Venkateswara Rao Vs. Smt. K.V. Subbamma (died) and Others
The main legal point established in the judgment is that tenants cannot deny the status of a landlord based on the agreed rent and must provide satisfactory evidence to support their claims.
The tenant must provide substantial evidence to support the denial of the landlord's title as per the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of regular rent payments and compliance with deposit rules by tenants, and it upholds the rights of illiterate landlords to property use.
The court emphasized the entitlement of the landlord to receive rents from the tenant, establishing the landlord-tenant relationship, and the requirement for proper reasons for reversing trial court'....
A tenant must establish timely rent payments to avoid eviction; separate attornment of tenancy is unnecessary upon property transfer.
Point of Law : Law is well settled that in absence of any evidence regarding payment of rents or that procedure as laid down under Section 8 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act....
Failure to follow prescribed rent payment procedure constitutes wilful default under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960.
As per the first proviso to Section 11(1), nothing contained in this Section shall apply to a tenant whose landlord is State Government or Central Government or other public authority notified under ....
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.