M LAKSHMINARAYANA Vs. M SURVAKANTHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and Subordinate Judge. Tanuku dt. 23-2-1983 in R. C. A. No. 4 of 1982 confirming an order of the Rent Controller, Tanuku dt. 4-11-1982 passed in R. C. C. 1 of 1980 allowing an application filed by the respondent herein under S.10(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')

(2.) The petitioner herein took on lease the petition schedule premises for running a cloth shop, in the year 1949 under a lease deed Ex.A-6. The petition was filed under S.10(2) on the ground that (1) the petitioner sublet the building to two tailors without the written consent of the respondent, (2) the petition schedule premises is required for running business by the respondent's adopted son and (3) the said premises is required for carrying on repairs. Oral and documentary evidence was produced both on behalf of the respondent and the petitioner herein. On consideration of the evidence on record, the Rent Controller held that the petitioner herein is liable to be evicted from the said premises on the grounds of 1) subletting, 2) requirement to carry on repairs and 3) bona fide requirement for the purpose of carrying on business by the respondent's adopted son. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge (Rent Control Appellate Authority) confirmed the order of the learned Principal District Munsif (Rent Controller).

(3.) It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petition schedule premises was leased out by the husband of the respondent herein in favour of the petitioner under Ex.A-6 lease deed dt. 15-10-1949 and ever since then he has been running a retail cloth shop in the said premises. The landlord died sometime back and the respondent herein is his widow. It is the case of the petitioner herein that a portion of the petition schedule premises was sublet to two tailors with the consent of the landlord, long back and the respondent having full knowledge of subletting, has been receiving rents regularly from the petitioner herein, without raising any objection against subletting.