K SREE RAMULOO Vs. K L NARASIMHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This is a revision petition directed against the order passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in Rent Appeal No. 174/196 on 21-3-1970 whereby the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and dismissed the petition filed by the landlord for eviction. The relevant facts are : The premises in question is 9-3-1971 situated at Regimental Bazar, Secunderabad. The Petitioner filed an application under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act of 1960 (hereinafter called the Rent Act). He wanted eviction on two grounds. Firstly he said that he wants the building for personal occupation and the second ground was that the tenant is using the building for non-residential purpose for which purpose it was not let out to him ; in as much as he is running a school in the building.

(2.) The defence set up by the tenant is that he is a Government employee and therefore the personal requirement of the petitioner cannot be sustained against him. In regard to the second contention he stated that only in a small portion of the building his wife imparts tution to a few boys and therefore the building is not used for any other purpose than for which it was let out.

(3.) The Rent Controller after a proper enquiry directed the eviction on the second ground. The first ground was withdrawn by the petitioner. On appeal the learned Chief Judge as stated earlier held that merely because a portion of the building is used for teaching some of the boys by the wife of the tenant it cannot be said that the building is converted to a use other than for which it was let out. It is this view that is now challenged in this revision Petition. Now under section 10(2)(a)of the Act if the tenant has transferred his right under the lease or sublet the entire building or any portion thereof if the lease does not confer on him any such right or has used the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased, then the landlord is entitled to get the tenant evicted. The finding of both the courts below is that out of the three rooms which were let out, only in one room and that too for a part of the day the wife of the tenant imparts tution to a few boys. It is in the light of this finding of fact that the question arises as to whether in these circumstances it can be held that the tenant has used the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased.