D SESHAGIRI RAO Vs. M V SASTRY
LAWS(APH)-1969-11-11
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on November 27,1969

D.SESHAGIRI RAO Appellant
VERSUS
M.V.SASTRY Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

PAHALAJMAL KHATUMAL V. T. V. AND BROTHERS [REFERRED TO]
MEHSIN BHAI V. HALE AND COMPANY G.T. MADRS [REFERRED TO]
R V N CHANDRASEKARA CHETTY VS. KAKUMANI ADIKESAVALU CHETTYS CHARITIES [REFERRED TO]
SILUVAIMANI AMMAL VS. THANGIAH NADAR [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The two revision petitions before me arise out of an application for eviction O.P. No. 40 of 1966 filed in the Court of the Rent Controller, Kakinada. C.R.P. No. 2089 of 1968, is by the tenant and C.R.P. No. 2343 of 1968 is by the landlord. The landlord filed an application under section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease Rent and Eviction ) Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Central Act) on five grounds (1) wilful default in payment of rent, (2) subletting by the tenant, (3) premises are required for reconstruction, (4) that the tenant unauthorisedly converted the residential building into a non-residential building, and (5) that the tenant was committing nuisance and causing damage to the building. The tenant in his counter-affidavit denied all the allegations made by the landlord. The Rent Controller ordered eviction of the tenant on three grounds, i.e., (1) the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent; (2) he had sublet the premises; and (3) the premises were required by the landlord for purposes of re construction.
(2.)Against this order of eviction the tenant filed C.M.A.No. 8 of 66 in the Court of the Subordinate Juge, at Kakinada. The landlord did not file any appeal. The appellate Court held that there was no wilful default on the part of the tenant and that he had not sub-let the premises. As regards the grounds for re-construction, the appellate Court held that that the premises were bona fide required by the landlord for re-construction and therefore passed the order for eviction imposing certain conditions on the landlord. It is against this order of the appellate Court that the aforesaid revisions have been filed before me.
(3.)The tenant's revision is directed against the finding of the appellate Court that the premises are required for reconstruction ; whereas the landlord's revision is directed against the finding of the appellate Court that there was no wilful default on the part of the tenant and that he had not sub-let the premises. In his revision he also attacks the conditions laid down by the appellate Court.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.