Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 931 (AP)

Guntuboyina Krishna v. Vangapandu Balaram

2006-08-03

V.ESWARAIAH

body2006
ORDER This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 12-9-2002 passed in R.C.A. No.9 of 1999 by the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Control Appellate Authority, Vizianagaram, confirming the order dated 27-2-1999 passed in R.C.C.No.23 of 1996 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Vizianagaram. 2. The petitioners herein are the landlords and the respondent is the tenant. The landlords filed R.C.C.No.23 of 1996 seeking eviction of the tenant on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rents for the months of October and November 1991 and that the tenant secured an alternative accommodation in the name of one of his family members, which is fit for residence. The tenant resisted the said eviction petition. The learned Rent Controller considered the points as to whether the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rents for the months of October and November 1991 and whether he has secured alternative accommodation in the name of his wife. 3. Insofar as wilful default in payment of rents is concerned the courts below concurrently held that the rents for the month of October and November 1991 have been deposited and the landlords had withdrawn the same. Therefore, there was no wilful default on the part of the tenant in payment of rents. 4. Learned counsel for the landlords mainly stressed with regard to the findings of both the Courts below with regard to the tenant securing alternative accommodation. 5. Though no specific plea has been taken in the eviction petition as to which member of the tenants family secured alternative accommodation, an issue has been framed that the tenant has got alternative accommodation in the name of his wife. However, the landlords contended that a house was allotted in the name of the wife of tenant at Phool Bagh Colony, Vizianagaram. The Courts below held that the landlords failed to prove that the tenant has secured alternative accommodation in the name of his wife. Having held so, the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, ought not to have observed that even assuming that the alleged acquisition of alternative accommodation by the respondent/tenant in the name of his family members in Phool Bagh Colony is true, it is not suitable accommodation to the landlords, as they are eking out their livelihood at M.G. Road, Vizianagaram. I am of the opinion that the said findings are illegal and contrary to Section 10(2)(v) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, which constitutes a ground for seeking eviction. Even if an alternative accommodation is secured in the name of the wife of the tenant, it is also a ground for seeking eviction. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the observation of the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority; that even assuming that the alleged acquisition of alternative accommodation by the respondent/tenant in the name of his family members in Phool Bagh Colony is true, it is not suitable accommodation to the landlords, as they are eking out their livelihood at M.G. Road, Vizianagaram; is unsustainable but on merits as the landlords failed to prove that the tenant has secured alternative accommodation, the civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed.