VEERA SWAMY Vs. D N DOMALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the tenant. He assails the order of the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad dated 21-3-2000 passed in RA No. 153 of 1998 confirming the order of the Principal Rent Controller dated 31-3-1998 in RC No.216 of 1994 ordering eviction of the petitioner. The parties will be referred to as 'landlord' and 'tenant' for the sake of convenience.

(2.) The landlord filed RCC No.216 of 1994 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad seeking eviction of the tenant on the grounds of wilful default; causing damage to the demised premises; and user of the premises for the purpose other than that for which it was leased. The learned Rent Controller after conducting an elaborate enquiry while holding that the tenant did not commit any wilful default, ordered eviction of the tenant on the ground that the tenant caused damage to the demised premises by changing the rafter and replacing the roof of the building without the consent of the landlord and that he used the demised premises for doing business in bakery. Aggrieved by the said order of eviction, the tenant preferred an appeal in RA No. 153 of 1998 before the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. In the appeal, the following points for consideration were framed: 1. Whether the respondent/tenant has caused any acts of waste, which will impair the value, and utility of the demised premises? 2. Whether the respondent/tenant is in arrears of electricity and water charges for five years? 3. Whether the respondent is carrying on bakery business in the demised premises? By the impugned judgment, the learned Chief Judge held all the above points against the tenant by holding that the tenant had caused damage to the premises which would impair the value and utility of the demised premises, that the tenant had not been paying electricity and water charges for over five years and that he had been doing bakery business in the demised premises in view of his own admissions as RW1 and dismissed the Appeal confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant has approached this Court by filing this revision petition.

(3.) Sri N. Ashok Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the tenant submits that the learned Chief Judge did not consider the evidence adduced in this case in the proper perspective, that findings recorded on the points for consideration are not correct, legal and proper and at any rate they are not well-founded and, therefore, the impugned order of the learned Chief Judge is liable to be set aside.