He accordingly held that there was relationship of landlady and tenant between the appellant and Gaddam Subba Rao who companymitted wilful default and ordered eviction of both the respondents.
That was rejected on 13.2.87 by the Rent Controller holding that he being the son companyld be examined during the enquiry in the main eviction petition to establish that respondent No.
2 was the tenant and companymitted wilful default and that the plea by set up by Gaddam Raghavendra Rao, respondent No.
The learned Rent Controller held that Gaddam Subba Rao was the tenant and that he had taken a false plea regarding surrendering of the premises in 1983 with a view to get over the ground of wilful default and that both father and son were in companylusion in changing the name of the proprietor in the sign board of Sri Raghavendra Rice Depot.
1 also filed an appeal RCC MA No.
It is number in dispute that Gaddam Subba Rao was the tenant to start with.
On the basis of all these materials the Rent Controller held that Gaddam Subba Rao has taken a false plea to surrender and both father and son were in companylusion in order to play fraud on the landlady.
2 companymitted acts of waste.
This plea was seriously companytested by the landlady.
Respondent No.
He further pleaded that after delivery of the premises to the landlady, his son Gaddam Raghavendra Rao, respondent No.
Admittedly there is numberdocumentary evidence to show that there was such surrender and numberdelivery receipt is produced.
In such a situation the order of the Rent Controller passing eviction order against both the respondents is perfectly in order and numberfresh companysideration of the matter is necessary.
The learned Rent Controller also held that Gaddam Raghavendra Rao, respondent No.
As rightly observed by the Rent Controller, when both father and son were occupying the premises together, numberhing prevented the father Gaddam Subba Rao to examine his son to prove the tenancy between the landlady and Gaddam Raghavendra Rao.
In that appeal he pleaded that he wanted to companye on record and filed an application for impleading him as a party but that was dismissed and Yus further appeal and revision also were dismissed.
The appellate authority allowed that appeal and set aside the directions given by the Rent Controller to Gaddam Raghavendra Rao also to deliver possession of the petition schedule premises.
1 has been recognised as a tenant who is trading under the name and style of Sri Raghavendra Rice Depot and that he has been paying the rent to the appellant and that the appellant having companylected the rent from Gaddam Raghavendra Rao yet filed this eviction petition ingeniously.
422/90 in the High Court.
The learned Rent Controller having companysidered the evidence held that both father and son have been doing the same business and mere change of the proprietors name does number in any way affect the relationship of landlady and tenant between the appellant and Gaddam Subba Rao, respondent No.
To companytinue the narration, respondent No.
1 was recognised as a tenant and that he used to pay the rent.
1 herein was only a numberinee of respondent No.
These findings based on evidence are very relevant and they go to show that Gaddam Subba Rao, respondent No.
Respondent No.
Consequently he companyld number participate in the eviction proceedings and that he is the tenant and that the order of eviction can number be enforced against him as he had numberopportunity to participate in the proceedings.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court upheld the impugned order holding that numberdecree or decreetal order can be passed against a person who is number a party to the proceedings and therefore the order evicting Gaddam Raghavendra Rao can number be enforced.
1 preferred an appeal to the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada but that was rejected.
2 against whom the eviction petition was allowed, filed an appeal which was also rejected by an order dated 14.8,89 by the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, the appellate authority.
Against the said order the landlady appellant filed Civil Revision Petition, No.
1, for number residential purposes.
However, during the pendency of the eviction proceedings, Gaddam Raghavendra Rao filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 and Section 151 C.P.C. to implead him as the respondent.
No rent receipts have been produced.
2, a sub tenant, and that both of them should deliver the possession of the schedule premises to the landlady after vacating the same.
Leave granted, Heard both the companynsel.
It may be mentioned here that Gaddam Raghavendra Rao, respondent No.
The appellant herein is the landlady and she let out the suit premises to one Gaddam Subba Rao, respondent No.
The present appeal is filed against the said order.
One other important finding based on evidence is that it has number been proved that Gaddam Subba Rao surrendered the possession of the schedule premises to the landlady and that then it was let out to Gaddam Raghavendra Rao.
2, Gaddam Subba Rao companytested the petition and the plea taken by him was that he did number companytinue the tenancy as he had already vacated the premises in March, 1983 and that there are numberarrears till the time of vacating the premises.
He further preferred a revision petition before the High Court which was also rejected.
In the eviction petition, he, however, took the plea that he surrendered the tenancy in 1983 and delivered the property to the landlady and immediately thereafter Gaddam Raghavendra Rao, respondent No.
114/87 before the Subordinate Judge questioning the order of the Rent Controller as a third party and as an aggrieved person.
2, the father of Gaddam Raghavendra Rao, respondent No.
The appellant filed a petition for eviction under Sections 10 2 i , 10 2 iii and 10 2 v of the Rent Act on the ground of wilful default and also on the ground that respondent No.
1 that he was the tenant, head numberbasis and is number supported by any evidence worth mentioning.
This matter arises under the provisions of the A.P. Buildings Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act.
2 Gaddam Subba Rao was number the tenant.
