MABBU SUBBARAM REDDI Vs. T A P SRINIVASA RAGHAVAN
LAWS(APH)-1971-11-31
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on November 04,1971

MABBU SUBBARAM REDDI Appellant
VERSUS
T.A.P.SRINIVASA RAGHAVAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The relevant facts for purpose of this revision are that the respondent herein who is the landlord of the premises bearing Door No. 130/4570 in T. P. Area in Seshachaliah street, Tirupati had let out the said premises under a lease deed dated 15-5-67 to the petitioner herein for a period of seven years on a monthly rent of Rs. 300.00 for the building and Rs. 250.00 for fixtures by way of installation of a pumpset and fans etc. The premises comprise of a building and a compound around it. The respondent herein filed a petition for eviction before the Rent Controller who is the Principal District Munsif, Tirupati on four grounds viz. (1) that the tenant is a wilful defaulter, (2) that the tenant had committed acts of waste which have materially impaired the value or utility of buildings, (3) that the tenant had sublet a part of the premises to another persons who was running a tea stall and (4) that the acts of sublessee are causing nuisance to the occupiers in the neighbourhood. The petitioner (tenant herein) stated that he is not a wilful defaulter, that he had constructed several rooms in order to carry out the purpose of running a lodging house for which the building was taken on lease and that his acts are such which instead of materially impairing the value of the building have increased its value. He has admitted that he had sublet a part of the premises to a third person for running, a tea stall but denied the allegation relating to causing of nuisance. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition for eviction finding on all the four points mentioned above in favour of the tenant. The landlord preferred an appeal and appellate court concurred with the finding of the Rent Controller that there was no wilful default on the part of the tenant. Neither of the Courts below have given a finding on the question relating to causing of nuisance. So far as the acts of waste are concerned, the appellate court found that the constructions carried out by the tenant have materially impaired the value or utility of the building and that the tenant having admitted the act of subletting has committed a breach of the provisions of S. 10 (2) (ii) (a) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act. Aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate authority, the tenant has preferred this revision petition.
(2.) Mr. Adinarayana Reddy, the learned advocate for the petitioner assails the judgment of the appellate court on two grounds viz., (1) that the appellate Court was incorrect in coming to the conclusion that the constructions carried out by the tenant have materially impaired the value of utility of the building, and (2) that having regard to the way in which the petition for eviction was framed, it could not be countenanced that the landlord had intended the eviction of the tenant on the basis of the sub-letting of a part of the premises by the tenant. He submits that because of the vague allegation of the landlord with regard to the sub-letting of the premises, he could not specifically plead that it was only a licence and not a sub-lease.
(3.) So far as the first point is concerned it is to be noted that S. 10 (2) (iii) of the Act provides. "............................................. (2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application is satisfied------------- ............................................... ............................................... (iii) that the tenant has committed such acts of waste as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building, or ................................................. .................................................. The Controller shall make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building and if the Controller is not so satisfied, he shall make an order rejecting the application......................";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.