NANDED WINE MART Vs. SURESH SHANKARLAL DHOOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision under section 26 of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 is directed against the order passed by the District Judge, Nanded in Rent Appeal HRCA No. 28 of 1989, decided on 7-8-1990 wherein the said District Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the order passed by the Rent Controller for eviction of the petitioner from the said premises on the grounds under section 15 (3) (a) (iii) and section 15 (2) (v) of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 and also further allowed the cross objections filed by the respondent and granted an order of eviction in favour of the respondent on the ground under section 15 (2) (i) of the said Act.

(2.) THE petitioner is tenant of the suit premises bearing Municipal No. 3-1-14 admeasuring 25 ft. to the east-west and 30 ft. north-south, situated at Station Road, Nanded and agreed rent of the said premises is Rs. 400/- per month and the petitioner entered the said premises as tenant in 1974. Initially the respondent/landlord filed eviction proceedings bearing No. 88-MAG-RCA-13 before the Rent Controller, Nanded claiming the eviction of the petitioner/tenant on following grounds:-

(3.) BEFORE proceeding to consider the points raised in the present matter, it requires to be stated that the learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to raise the point that in a rent appeal the cross objections cannot be filed and that the District Judge erred in entertaining the cross objections and reversing the finding in respect of the wilful default of the petitioner. However, this point was not pressed at a subsequent stage of the argument by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and thus, the point was given up. Under these circumstances, as the point was given up by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is not considered in this judgment.