HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1024 OF 2008 DATE:21-12-2010 BETWEEN Potluri Jawaharlal Nehru & another …Petitioners AND Jalagam Yeshoda Devi …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1024 OF 2008 ORDER: This revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act has been filed to revise the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid made in Small Cause Suit No.85 of 2004, dated 25.10.2007. Plaintiffs-petitioners herein instituted the above suit for recovery of rents at the rate of Rs.200/- per month for 36 months from 1.11.2001 to 31.10.2004 alleging that the defendant- respondent herein entered into an oral lease with the mother of the plaintiffs in respect of mortgage house at the rate of Rs.200/- per month towards rent from 1.9.1997 and thereafter, she committed default in the year 1998. Hence, the suit. The defendant- respondent herein filed written statement stating that the first plaintiff and his mother borrowed money of Rs.20,000/- from her in installments in the year 1987 and 1988 for the purpose of construction of house agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum with a condition that the defendant can reside in the said house after construction without any rent till discharging the debt and that in the year 1987, the defendant occupied the said house and residing therein without any rent. There was no tenancy in between the defendant and the mother of the plaintiffs or with the plaintiffs. The mother of the plaintiffs executed a registered mortgage deed in her favour on 21.10.1988. It is not in dispute that the defendant filed a suit against the plaintiff and her mother in O.S.No.251 of 2000 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Nuzvid for recovery of mortgage debt and the same was decreed in her favour. During the course of trial, it was brought to the notice of the Court that the first plaintiff filed R.C.C.No.4 of 2004 against the defendant on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Nuzvid for eviction and the same was decreed in favour of the first plaintiff. The chief-affidavit filed by P.W.1 did not disclose that an oral lease was taken place in between his mother and the defendant in respect of the house for monthly rent of Rs.200/- from 1.9.1989 and admittedly, the defendant has been residing in the said house till the date of filing of the suit. The mother of the plaintiffs was demanding the defendant to vacate the schedule house and got issued a notice under Ex.A.1, dated 25.5.1990, to which, a reply under Ex.A.2, dated 9.6.1990 was given by the defendant denying the relationship as a tenant to the said house and stating that the mother of the plaintiffs mortgaged the schedule house on 21.10.1988 with a condition that the defendant can reside therein after construction without rent till the debts were discharged. Further P.W.1 in the cross-examination admitted that he was not present when his mother leased out the house to the defendant. Absolutely, there is no evidence on record to show that the house of the plaintiffs was leased out to the defendant on 1.9.1987. Further there was variation in between the averments of the plaint and the chief-affidavit filed by the plaintiffs with regard to the alleged oral lease deed said to have been taken place on 1.9.1987, and that the plaintiffs failed to establish the alleged oral lease deed dated 1.9.1987 and holding so, the lower Court dismissed the suit. The findings so recorded by the lower Court is on appreciation of evidence available on record and that the said findings cannot be said to be not in accordance with law. No infirmity is discernable with the impugned order passed by the lower Court. The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. DECEMBER 21, 2010 Tsr.