Tenants' claims of ignorance regarding ownership were dismissed; willful default established due to failure to pay rent despite knowledge of landlord's rights.

ORDER:

1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 22 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short “the Act, 1960”) questioning the order of eviction in R.C.C.No.31 of 2009 passed by the Rent Controller-cum- Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinanda, dated 14.03.2012, which was confirmed in R.C.A.No.11 of 2012 dated 21.02.2014 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District.

2. The Petitioners herein are the tenants.

3. The Respondent No.1/landlord had filed the R.C.C for eviction. Pending disposal of this Revision, the Respondent No.1 died and the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 were brought on record as his legal representatives vide Court order dated 06.08.2019 in CMP.No.336 of 2016 in CRP.No.1143 of 2014.

4. For brevity, the parties will be addressed as landlords and tenants.

5. The brief facts so far:

The Respondent No.1 is the owner of the property.

The schedule property fell to her share in a partition that was entered between K. Ramarao and others in a compromise decree dated 19.10.2022 in P.L.C.No.45 of 2002 before the Legal Services Authority. The schedule shop was leased to the tenants/Petitioners on a monthly rent of Rs.600/- payable by 1^st of every succeeding month. The tenants/Petitioners were well aware of the fact that the schedule shop fell to the share of the landlord/Respondent No.1 and she is the owner of the property. In spite of having full knowledge, the tenants/Petitioners were not paying rents from November, 2002 and thus committed default in payment of rents.

6. Therefore, the R.C.C was filed seeking eviction on the ground of willful default. The schedule property is a shop situated in the Market Street of Kakinada town. The tenants/Petitioners filed their counter denying knowledge the of schedule property being allotted to the landlord/Respondent No.1 under a compromise decree in P.L.C.No.45 of 2002, dated 19.10.2022. The tenants/Petitioners pleaded that they were not aware of this fact at any time. The tenants/Petitioners contended that they have been regular in payment of rent and there is no default at any point of time. The tenants/Petitioners stated that they used to send the rent by way of money order to their landlord/Respondent No.1 every month without any default and all the money order receipts were available with the tenants/Petitioners to substantiate their claim.

7. It was their further plea that the schedule property was never mutated in the name of the landlord/Respondent No.1 pursuant to the compromise decree and therefore the tenants/Petitioners said to have committed any default. In the trial Court, the landlord/Respondent No.1 was examined as P.W.1. On behalf of the tenants/Petitioners, one among them i.e. Pampana Venkata Ramana was examined as R.W.1.

8. On behalf of the landlord/Respondent No.1 only Ex.A.1 was marked in evidence while on behalf of the tenants/Petitioners, Exs.B.1 to B.4 were marked. Ex.B.1 is Bunch of bank counterfoils (totalling to 6), Ex.B.2 is Bunch of M.O receipts (totalling to 86), Ex.B.3 is Bunch of M.O acknowledgments (totalling to 108) and Ex.B.4 is Bunch of postal receipts along with postal acknowledgments (totalling to 110).

9. The trial Court allowed the petition for eviction and granted three months time to the tenants/Petitioners to vacate the schedule premises. The appeal filed thereon stood dismissed. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

10. Heard Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri K.V. Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the Respondents.

11. The contention of the learned counsel for