Indani Mohana Rao vs Kosuri Sandeep Died
2024 Latest Caselaw 3045 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Indani Mohana Rao vs Kosuri Sandeep Died on 1 April, 2024

                                      1


 APHC010167562019
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                   AT AMARAVATI                      [3458]
                            (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                      MONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL
                     TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                  PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

                    CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1463/2019

Between:

Indani Mohana Rao and Others                                ...PETITIONER(S)

                                    AND

Kosuri Sandeep Died and Others                         ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

   1. A S C BOSE

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

   1. T V S PRABHAKARA RAO

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, assailing the decree and judgment in RCA No.11 of

2014 dated 29.04.2019, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, confirming the orders in

R.C.C. No.39 of 2011 dated 11.11.2014 on the file of the Rent Controller,

Rajahmundry.

2. The unsuccessful tenant in RCC No.39/2011 has filed the

present Revision Petition aggrieved by the order RCA No.11/2014. The

petitioner herein is tenant in the suit schedule property on a monthly

rent of Rs.600/-, payable on 1st of every month. The said lease was oral

lease.

3. The case of the land lord in RCC was that the petitioner

herein was inducted as tenant in the middle portion of a building on a

monthly rent of Rs.600/-. The land lord filed the case for eviction on the

ground of personal requirement and for demolition of the building and

further on the ground that there was willful default in payment of rents.

The said lease was oral lease. The contention of the landlord is that the

schedule building is a very old structure of more than 70 years and as he

was residing at USA on his professional work and his grandfather, who

was looking after the property became very old and his parents are also

ailing the petitioner therefore, wanted to come back India and settle

down at Rajahmundry. Therefore, as he wanted to remove the old

structure and construct a new building to suit his business needs, he

wanted the petitioners herein to vacate the petition schedule property. It

is his further allegation that the respondents failed to pay the monthly

rentals since 1st April, 2010.

4. The case of the respondents is that they have been paying

rentals to one, Mr.Posuri Srinivasa Raju, he was never in the habit of

issuing rentals and did not acknowledge the receipt of rentals. He,

therefore denied land lord and tenant relationship with the respondents.

The learned Rend Controller, allowed the RCC, filed by the landlord

granting time to vacate the petition schedule premises and deliver the

vacant possession of the same to the petitioners. As against the said

order, the tenant filed the appeal before Senior Civil Judge,

Rajamahendaravaram. The learned Judge, confirmed the order of the

Rent Controller, granting a period of one month to vacate the schedule

premises. Assailing the said order, the present Revision Petition is filed.

5. Heard Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioners and

Sri T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.

6. Considered the rival submissions. The landlord has sought

for eviction of the petitioner on three grounds viz., bonafide requirement

of suit premises, for demolition of the building as the same is an old

structure, willful default in payment of rents. During the pendency of

RCC, before the learned rent Controller, the landlord died and therefore

the issue relating to the bonafide requirement of the schedule premises

to the landlord was not gone into both by the Learned Rent Controller

and the Appellate Court. Both the courts have ordered eviction of the

petitioner, on the sole ground that there was willful default in payment of

rents. It is a concurrent finding of the two courts, on the basis of

appreciation of evidence on record, that there was willful default in

payment of rents from May, 2010 to June, 2013. And no perversity is

pointed out from the orders of the two Courts. This Court does not find

any patent illegality to be interfered with exercising revisionary

jurisdiction under Sec.22 of the Act.

7. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed,

confirming the order of the Rent Controller in R.C.C. No.39 of 2014,

dated 11.11.2014, as confirmed by the learned Principal Senior Civil

Judge, Rajamahendravaram, in R.C.A. No.11 OF 2014.However, the

petitioners/tenants are granted time to vacate the RC schedule

premises and to deliver the vacant physical possession of the same to the

respondents/landlords within a period of three (3) moths from the date of

receipt of orders of this Court. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand

closed. [

____________________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:01.04.2024 MVK

Note:

Issue C.C. by three(3) days B/o.

MVK

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1463 of 2019

Date:01.04.2024

Note:

Issue C.C. by three(3) days B/o.

MVK