IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 3 7 5 4 OF 2001. Between: Devatha Tirupathi Rao ... Petitioner V/s. Boggavarapu Raju (died) & Anr. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MSR. SUBRAMANYAM Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3 7 5 4 OF 2001 O R D E R : This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 15-02-2001 in RCA.No. 24 of 1997 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, wherein the said appeal filed by the appellant-landlord was dismissed confirming the order dated 30-4-1997 in RCC.No. 2 of 1992 on the file of Rent Controller- cum-District Munsif, Tuni. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and none appeared for the respondent. 3. The notice issued to the second respondent was returned as not claimed. Perused the records. 4. The petitioner herein filed RCC.No.2 of 1992 seeking eviction of the second respondent herein on the ground of willful default in payment of rent and also that the respondent committed acts of waste by making unauthorized construction without permission of the petitioner-landlord. 5. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the house bearing D.No. 2-=7-338 with Assessment No.2142 situate at Rani Subhadrayamma peta, Tuni, East Godavari district and the respondent has taken the same on rent for running Vivekavardhani Public School on a monthly rent of Rs. 700=00 payable on or before 15th day of every succeeding month. It was further averred that both the parties have agreed that if the tenant require to make temporary construction in the vacant site for the extension of the school, the petitioner shall not make any objection and that the tenant shall remove and take away the temporary construction at the time of vacating the premises. The respondent shall vacate the schedule premises at the end of the lease period i.e.31-51991. It is stated that the petitioner and respondent entered into agreement of lease on 26-2-1986. The petitioner-landlord alleges that the tenant did not pay the rent due to the petitioner and made unauthorized constructions of a staircase without obtaining permission of the petitioner. The petitioner got issued registered legal notice on 07-3-1991 demanding payment of rents and also to vacate the premises. The respondent got issued reply notice dated 10-3-1991, for which the petitioner got issued further reply dated 09-5-1991. There was further exchange of notices between the parties before filing this petition. 6. The second respondent herein, who contested the matter filed a counter contending that he paid Rs.2000=00 towards advance at the time of execution of the lease deed and as there is increase in the number of students, the petitioner agreed for the construction of the first floor. It is further alleged that as required by the petitioner, the respondent paid Rs.9000=00 by cheque dated 23-9-1989 to the petitioner for making construction of the stair case and the first floor and that the petitioner also agreed to receive rent of Rs.3000/- for both the ground floor and first floor. The first floor was constructed and possession was delivered to the tenant in September 1989. Ever since the respondent-tenant has been in possession and enjoyment of the entire building except one room. The respondent himself constructed the staircase at the expense of Rs.6,727=25 paise but the petitioner failed to settle the accounts and was not receiving the rent from 01-5-1990 saying that it would be adjusted from out of the expenditure incurred by the respondent in a sum of Rs.6727-25 paise for construction of the stair case. The total amount for a period of 13 months accumulated to Rs.9,100-00 and after deducting the amount of Rs.6727=25 paise, the sum of Rs.2,372-75 paise was due by the respondent and the petitioner failed to receive the same in spite of repeated requests with ulterior motive. 7. The respondent through notice demanded the petitioner to intimate the bank account for depositing the rent into his account. But the petitioner did not furnish his account particulars. When the respondent sent the balance amount by money order, the same was refused by the petitioner. Then the respondent filed RCC.No. 3 of 1991 and continued to deposit the rent to the credit of the said R.C.C. The respondent therefore denied that there was any default muchless willful default in making payment of the rent and that he made any illegal o unauthoised construction. 8. Before the trial court, PW.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked on behalf of the petitioner and RW.1 was examined and no document was marked on behalf of the respondent. 9. The learned Rent Controller on appreciation of the evidence on record held that the respondent has not committed any wilful default in payment of rent and he acted as per the conditions of the agreement and the construction of the staircase made by the respondent was not an act of waste. Accordingly, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the petition holding that both the grounds urged for eviction are not made out. 10. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed RCA.No. 24 of 1997. 11. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority on re-appraisal of the entire evidence on record by impugned judgment dated 15-2-2001 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the findings of the learned Rent Controller. 12. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 13. A perusal of the judgment of the courts below would clearly discloses that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for eviction on both the grounds of willful default and acts of waste alleged by him. The evidence on record further established that the respondent had constructed the staircase at his own costs. Though the petitioner has taken Rs.9000=00 for construction of the staircase and the respondent after deducting the amount of Rs.6727-25 paise incurred by him for construction of the staircase offered to pay the arrears of rent of Rs.2372=75 paise but the petitioner himself refused to receive the money order sent by the respondent for no justifiable reason. The respondent therefore filed RCC.No. 3 of 1991 seeking permission to deposit the rent into the court and accordingly the rents were being deposited to the credit of the said RCC. The conduct of the petitioner in not adjusting the rents from out of the sum of Rs.9000/- received by him from the respondent contrary to the promise made by him and his refusal to receive the balance amount of Rs.2372-75 paise offered by the respondent after adjusting the costs of staircase in a sum of Rs.6725-75 paise was not bonafide. The respondent has taken all necessary steps to see that there was no default on his part in the matter of payment of the rents. 14. Similarly the other allegations made by the petitioner that the respondent constructed the staircase unauthorisedly and it amounts to act of waste also remained unsubstantiated. The evidence on record would disclose that as per the agreement between the parties, the respondent was entitled to make extension for accommodating the increasing number of students and the petitioner shall not raise any objection for the same and that the petitioner in fact offered to construct staircase but failed to do so and so the respondent had to make the construction. The petitioner has agreed to receive the rent both for ground floor and also the first floor. The respondent has taken the plea that he has not made any unauthorized construction without the knowledge or consent of the petitioner and that the other construction of the stair case and the first floor only added to the existing accommodation and thereby enhanced the value of the building and the same cannot be considered to be an act of waste at all. The impugned order passed by the courts below recording concurrent finding to the effect that there was no wilful default in payment of rents nor was there any act of waste on the part of the respondent-tenant does not call for any interference by this court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, as the said order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and on the other hand is based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record. In the circumstances, there are no reasonable or justifiable grounds to interfere with the orders of the courts below. 15. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY 20-X-2009 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3 7 5 4 OF 2001 Computer No. 43 20-X-2009 I s L