SAJAN KUMAR Vs. D N DHUMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st revision petitioner, here-in-after referred to as tenant and the other revision petitioners - R-2 to R-4 in R.C.No. 176/95 on the file of III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, styled as sub-tenants. Aggrieved by the order of eviction made in the aforesaid R.C. as confirmed in R.A.No.125/99 on the file of Addl. Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, had preferred the present C.R.P. underSection 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (in short here-in-after referred to as Act for the purpose of convenience).

(2.) Respondent in the C.R.P. Dr. D.N. Dhumale (here-in-after referred to as landlord) filed R.C.No. 176/95 aforesaid on the grounds of wilful default, sub-letting and acts of waste. The learned Rent Controller recorded the evidence of Dr. D.N. Dhumale as P.W.1 and Sajjan Kumar as R.W.1, marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5 and Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-10 and ordered eviction specifically answering and recording findings relating to the ground of sub-letting, specifically negativing the ground of acts of waste and not clearly recording any finding relating to wilful default except observing non-payment of electricity and water bills. The matter was carried by way of appeal R.A.No. 125/99 aforesaid wherein the Appellate Authority framed the points for consideration and recorded specific finding relating to the ground of wilful default and also the ground of sub-letting but however negativing the relief on the ground of acts of waste confirming the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller in this regard. Aggrieved by the same the present C.R.P. is preferred.

(3.) Submissions of Sri Ashok Kumar:- Sri Ashok Kumar, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners would contend that the alleged default is for a period of 3 months and no finding had been recorded in this regard by the learned Rent Controller and hence it cannot be said that concurrent findings had been recorded in this regard by both the Courts below as far as the ground of wilful default is concerned. The learned Counsel also would submit that the conduct of the landlord also may have to be taken into consideration while deciding the ground of wilful default and the conduct would clearly reflect that just to make it a ground for eviction, the landlord intentionally evaded the receipt of rent. Hence, the same cannot be styled as wilful. The learned Counsel also would contend that the ingredients necessary to establish the ground of subletting had not been satisfied. The burden is on the landlord to establish sub-letting. Except the evidence of P.W.1, there is no other evidence available on record. The learned Counsel also would submit that revision petitioners 2 and 3 are the close relatives of the 1st petitioner and the revision petitioner No.4 is a worker and in the light of the specific stand taken by the tenant, it cannot be said that the ground of sub-letting had been established by the landlord. The learned Counsel placed reliance on certain decisions in this regard.