BALLANI RANGANAYAKULU Vs. MATTUPALLI NAGESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenants' revision petition. Both the Courts below held that there was default in payment of rent from March, 1978 as pleaded for the eviction petitioner. While the Rent Controller held that there was no sub-letting, the Appellate Court held that there was sub-letting without the consent of the landlord. The said finding was given by the Appellate court, though the eviction petitioner had not filed any cross-objections.

(2.) The points that arise for consideration are: (1) Whether the respondent-landlord can support the order of eviction by canvassing the correctness of the findings held against him, even though he had not preferred cross-objections; and (2) Whether there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the findings; (a) that there was wilful default in payment of rent from March 1978; and (b) that there was subletting without the written consent of the landlord. POINT No. 1:

(3.) Section 20 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Rent Control Act") provides for an appeal as against the order passed by the Rent Controller. It-does not refer to cross-objections.