KALIGOTLA SURYANARAYANA MURTHY Vs. P V RAMANAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in the Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 22 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, in short referred to as "Act" hereinafter, is the landlord and the petitioner in R.C.C.No. 1/93 on the file of Rent Controller-District Munsif, Bheemunipatnam. The Revision Petitioners are tenants and the legal representatives of the tenants' since certain parties died pending litigation.

(2.) For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as "landlord" and "tenants".

(3.) The landlord filed R.C.C.No. 1/93 as petitioner in the said R.C.C. seeking the relief of eviction of the tenants pleading in the eviction petition as follows: The petitioner herein is the owner of the petition schedule property for which he has been regularly paying the taxes on the property to the Bheemunipatnam Municipality under Assessment No. 259 and the said schedule building was given on lease under a registered lease deed dated 1-7-1940 to one Kaligotla Suryanarayana on a monthly rent of Rs. 2.13 annas and in or about 1974, the said Suryanarayana died and the respondents herein being the legal heirs of the deceased attorned to the petitioner as tenants. It is also contended that subsequent to the death of the original tenant, the respondents have not been paying the rents regularly and also developed an evil intention of making several structural modifications and alterations to the building to suit their convenience without the written consent and knowledge of the petitioner herein though it was recited in the registered lease deed that the tenants shall not make any additions, structural alterations or modifications to the existing building without the previous written consent of the landlord. It is also contended that late K. Suryanarayana, who was the original tenant, was the Chairman of Bheemunipatnam Municipality. Taking advantage of his position and also the fact that the petitioner was a minor, had made certain structural alterations and additions. It is also contended that the late Suryanarayana and also the respondents herein have made extensive modifications to the said building and to the North of the original schedule premises as contained in the lease deed three more rooms are put up and likewise on the Southern side they have extended the building by raising the compound wall further and constructed three rooms and two toilets/bathrooms and they have also constructed two bath rooms on the Eastern side adjoining the wall and by the side of the toilets and to further North-East the respondents have started constructing two more big rooms and a toilet and bathroom inside and they have also put up a staircase for going to the first floor and the respondents have been treating the property as it is their own and have been making all the structural changes, additions and modifications. It is also contended that there is a lot of vacant site around the building which could have been developed by the petitioner in a more gainful fashion according to his taste and to suit his convenience is otherwise wasted and the said constructions raised by the respondents have materially impaired the utility and the value of the main structure that was leased out. It is also contended that the respondents have failed to pay the rents from 1-1-1983 and the respondents herein let out the petition schedule property to some tenants on huge rents and they are collecting and enjoying the said property and the other smaller house which is situated on the Northern side of the schedule property is being used by the respondents themselves. It is also contended that the petitioner herein has four sons and two daughters and the petitioner shall have to provide each of them their own premises to enable them to live independently therein and the sons of the petitioner intend to start their own business and the petition schedule premises is situate in the centre of the market at Bheemunipatnam and is ideally suited for locating business, therefor, requires the said petition schedule property for his own personal use and occupation. It is also contended that the petitioner herein got issued a registered lawyer's notice on 4-1-1993 to the respondents and the respondents also got issued a common reply on 21-1-1993 with false allegations.