Judgment · High Court

Order

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Khammam as well as the learned Senior Civil Judge, Khammam, in R.C.C.No. 1 of 2010 and R.C.A.No.1 of 2010 respectively. The petitioner is the tenant of the demised premises. It is a non-residential premises. The respondent has purchased the said premises from his predecessor, who has leased out the said premises to the petitioner herein. Earlier, the parties have

approached the civil Court. The respondent herein has instituted civil suit, O.S.No.689 of 2009 and the petitioner herein has admitted that he will vacate the premises in the month of January 2011. However, while recording the same, the civil suit has been dismissed, as the jurisdiction does not lie on the civil Court to order for eviction of the petitioner herein. Thereafter, respondent landlord initiated proceedings under the Rent Control Act, which gave rise to the present Revision. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several contentions, including the fact that the respondent landlord has to pay some amount, at least, towards renovation work undertaken by the petitioner herein to the shop premises, I do not find any justifiable reason to entertain this Revision. Both the Courts have concurrently recorded the findings of fact, which are not liable to be reversed in this Revision, as they are passed based upon proper and correct appreciation of the evidence brought on record. When once the petitioner has gone on record admitting that he will be vacating the premises by the end of January 2011, he is required to honour such a commitment. He cannot, now, turn round and raise a different plea in that regard. The learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the petitioner has failed to produce any evidence whatsoever to establish that he has spent so much of money in the matter of renovation of the shop premises. However, he suggests that whatever amount that the Court may feel as reasonable amount towards meeting the renovation charges, the respondent landlord is willing to pay the same. In view of the concession accorded by the learned counsel respondent, upon receiving such instructions in the matter, I consider it appropriate to direct the respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) before the learned Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Khammam, to the credit of R.C.C.No.1 of 2010 before the end of October, 2011. On such deposit, the same may be paid to the petitioner herein representing the renovation charges, said to have been incurred by him, in full and final settlement of all such claims in that regard. The petitioner is granted time for vacating the premises and delivering the vacant possession thereof to the respondent, up to 30-11-2011. With this, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. ------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohan Rao, J 12-08-2011