Judgment:
1. This revision application is directed against a judgment dated 6th October, 1997 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the tenant-respondent aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed in RCC 15 of 1992 by the District Munsif-cum-Rent Controller, Chittoor, was reversed. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The petitioner herein is the landlord. He filed a suit for eviction of the respondent-tenant under Section 10 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as 'the Act') inter alia on the grounds of default, acts of waste and bona fide requirement.
2. The Rent Controller, on the basis of the materials placed before him, arrived at a finding of fact to the effect that the ground of personal requirement is not tenable. He, however, decreed the suit on the ground that the respondent-tenant herein wilfully committed default in payment of rent for the period from February, 1991 to January, 1992 as also on the ground that he was guilty of commission of acts of waste. The said findings are recorded in paras 21 and 22 of the said judgment. The learned Court of appeal below, however, found fault with the said finding of fact and allowed the appeal. It appears that the Rent Controller, as regards the question of default inter alia held:
'It was suggested to RW1 that even prior to 1992 also he committed wilfuldefault in payment of rents. RW1 did not say clearly in his evidence till what time he made payment of rents. However, he stated that in June, 1992 the petitioner refused to receive rent and hence he sent rent as money order. He did not say in clear terms that till June, 1992 he made payment of rents to the petitioner. It is there in the evidence of PW1 that in June 1991 the respondent filed the suit OS No.204 of 1991 PW1 categorically stated in his evidence during chief-examination that the respondent has not paid the rents from February, 1991. It was suggested to PW1 that the respondent/tenant had paid rents till June, 1992. It was suggested to PW1 that the respondent is not due of any rents. The circumstances of the case go to show that the respondent has committed default in payment of rents. As seen from the evidence of PW1 in June, 1991 the respondent/tenant filed a suit against the landlord for grant of injunction in OS No.204 of 1991 on the file of III Additional District Munisif, Chittoor alleging nuisance. There is no material with the respondent/tenant to show that he has made any payment of rent till July, 1992. Since July, 1992 the respondent/tenant started sending money orders. The respondent could not explain the period of one year i.e., from June, 1991 i.e., date of; filing of the suit by him till starting sending of money orders in July, 1992. About a period of one year the respondent could not explain how he made payment of rents to the landlord. I do not understand how the respondent/ tenant made any payments to the landlord without taking any receipt of acknowledgment in token of receipt of payment of rent, even after filing of the suit by the tenant against the landlord. Had, the tenant made any payment of rent after he filed the suit against the landlord, he ought to have obtained the proper receipt from the landlord. It is not the case of the respondent that he demanded for issuance of receipt by the landlord when he made payment of rent, during the pendency of the suit filed by him, or still he had confidence in the landlord that he would not deny any such payment of rent, though the receipt is not obtained.'
3. He, however, could not give any positive finding as regards the payment or non-payment of rent for the period of from February, 1991 to June, 1992. Before the Rent Controller, a plea was raised on behalf of the respondent-tenant that a sum of Rs.5,000/- had been advanced to the petitioner-landlord. The Rent Controller negatived the said plea on the basis of the materials on record. As regard the purported acts of waste on the part of the respondent-tenant, relying on the basis of evidence as adduced by the parties as also the reports of the Advocate-Commissioner which were marked as Exs.C1 to C4, he held that the tenant-appellant was guilty of commission of acts of waste.
4. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge, Chittoor, in his impugned judgment, without assigning any cogent reasons, set aside the aforementioned findings of fact. It appears the he judgment of the learned Court of appeal below is not only clumsy but also does not stand the test of requirement of law. He, it appears, without assigning sufficient reasons, reversed the findings of fact arrived at by the learned Rent Controller to the effect:
'It somewhat quite evident that the recording of evidence of PW1 regarding this aspect is faulty because no Counsel of tenant/appellant would put a question that would reflect in the form of an answer as contained is the evidence of PW1 because prudently the advocate for the appellant as per his contention would have put a suggestion that he has paid Rs.5,000/- to PW1 and which ought tohave been reduced in a negative form during the cross-examination while recording the deposition of PW1. It is further evident regarding this aspect of advance during the cross-examination which is reflecting that the witness has volunteered that answer as per record. So on that count it reflects that the evidence of PW1 for that aspect during cross-examination was not properly translated consequently, the chief -examination of RW1 discloses that he paid Rs.5,000/- to the landlord. But the cross-examination of PW1 further discloses without any ambiguity that there is no suggestion of that aspect by the landlord at all under any count and at any place which is a glaring mistake not explained by the landlord respondent. So, by non-cross-examination by the landlord regarding this aspect of payment of Rs.5,000/- when RW1 was cross-examined by him, proves that the payment of Rs.5,000/- by the appellant/ tenant to the respondent/landlord is true and correct because the evidence in chief has to be accepted when there is no cross-examination for that aspect, because the conduct of the landlord to the effect that he has no habit of passing any receipts as and when he receives amounts from the tenants clearly reflects and supports the version of the appellant/ tenant for this aspect. So the lower Court's observation in the order at page 35 at para 21 discloses that from 1991 June, to 1994 July, rents at the rate of Rs.350/.- per month was found due by the tenant is not acceptable piece of evidence because the conduct of refusal on the part of the respondent when money orders were sent, speaks out that the respondent/landlord is male fide by virtue of his acts who is searching for a cause to evict the tenant-appellant from the schedule premises.'
5. He, thereafter, inter alia held that even otherwise, as the payment of the aforementioned sum of Rs.5,000/- as advanced has been proved, the tenant-respondent could not be a defaulter. While arriving at the said finding, the learned Court of appeal below has failed to take into consideration the provisions of Section 8 of the Act as also a decision of this Court in C. Hanumantha Rao v. M. Prem Sudhakara Rao, : 1998(2)ALD49 . As regards the acts of waste, the learned Court of appeal below also failed to take into consideration that the matter relating thereto has to be appreciated from the point of view of the landlord in terms of decision of this Court in Shanti Tarachand v. C.S. Narasimha Rao, : 2000(4)ALD578 .
6. Furthermore, it is now well settled principle of law that whenever a finding of fact is arrived at by a trial Court, it shall not be interfered with by a Court of first appeal without assigning cogent reasons therefor although it is entitled to take into consideration the matter afresh both on fact as also law.
7. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly and the matter is remitted back to the Court of appeal below. However, having regard to the fact that the suit for eviction was filed under Section 10 of the Act as far back as August, 1992, the appellate Court must dispose of the matter within one month from the date of communication of this order as also the lower Court record. The CRP is disposed of with the aforementioned observations but in the facts and circumstances of this case, shall be no order as to costs.