KOLAGADA PORANNA Vs. PALTHUR VISHWESHWARAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Srinivasarao's contention is that the District Judge having found that the landlord was in occupation of another non-residential building for the purpose of his business, to the possession of which he was entitled, should not have made out a new case for the landlord that there had been some act of subletting by the petitioner to his son.

(2.) Mr. Jayamahadev Prasad made a submission that it is open to him to support the conclusion of the District Judge, not only on the ground on which, his judgment rests but also on the ground which was alleged by the landlord, although it was not upheld by the District Judge. It is in evidence that the landlord is a young man carrying on stationery business and that when he made that application he was in occupation of non-residential build belonging to someone else. The trustees who were in management of that building, according to the landlord, had issued a notice to the landlord calling upon him to quit and delivery possession of the property to the trustees. Mr. Jayamahadev Prasad's argument is that, when the landlord made his application he was, by reason of that notice, no longer entitled to occupation of that non-residential building, and that the District Judge was not right in thinking that the landlord was entitled to the possesion of another non-residential building and that therefore he could not evict the petitioner.

(3.) It may be, as contended by Mr. Srinivasarao, that in thinking that there was some act of subletting by the petitioner to his son, the District Judge made out a new case for the landlord. But it appears to make that the Controller's finding that the landlord when he made his application was not entitled to the possession of the non-residential building of which he was in occupation, either under the Act or others, should not have been disturbed by the District Judge. When one of the trustees who were in management of that non-residential building issued a notice to the landlord calling upon him to quit and deliver possession of that property to the trustees, the tenancy in respect of that building came to an end and stood terminated. That being so, the landlord was no longer entitled to the possession of the building either under the Act or otherwise.