D TALUPULU Vs. M VENKATA RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D.Talupulu, the unsuccessful tenant both before the learned Rent Controller and the appellate authority had preferred these two C.R.Ps., under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act 1960, hereinafter, in short, referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience. The said D. Talupulu died and his son D.A. Raju was brought on record as legal representative, who is further prosecuting these C.R.Ps. The respondents in C.R.P. No.3351 of 1997, M.Venkata Raju and M. Shanta Kumari filed R.C.C. No.2 of 1994 which was re-numbered as R.C.C. No.271 of 1995 on the file of Rent Controller praying for eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule premises under Section 10(1), 10(2)(ii)(a) (b), 10(3) of the Act. The tenant filed R.C.C.No.67 of 1993, which was renumbered as R.C.C.No.297 of 1995 under Section 8 of the Act praying for permission to deposit the rents. The learned Rent Controller, Vishakapatnam after recording the evidence of P.W.I and R.W.1 and marking Exs.A1 to A3, Ex.X1 and Ex.C1 and Exs.B1 to B19, ultimately ordered eviction granting two months time to vacate the premises and dismissed the R.C.C. wherein the relief praying for permission to deposit the rents had been prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant preferred R.C.A. No.27 of 1997 as against the order made in R.C.C.No.271 of 1995 to the appellate authority-Subordinate Judge, Vishakapatnam. Likewise, as against the order made in R.C. No.247 of 1995, R.C.A. No.38 of 1997 was preferred and the appellate authority by order dated 31-3-1997 had dismissed both the R.C.As., and aggrieved by the same, the present C.R.Ps., had been preferred by the unsuccessful tenant to this Court under Section 22 of the Act. Contentions of Sri Bharat Babu :

(2.) Sri Bharat Babu, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner, the legal representative of tenant, made the following submissions : The learned Counsel had taken this Court through the evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also the appellate authority and would contend that the learned Rent Controller had not recorded findings relating to all the grounds but had recorded findings only in relation to certain grounds and hence, such findings cannot be said to be concurrent findings. The learned Counsel also would point out that mere default will not amount to wilful default and the conduct of the parties may have to be taken into consideration and at no point of time any notice as such had been issued relating to the non-payment or the delayed payments and when an attempt was made on the part of the landlord to evade the receipt of amounts the tenant had invoked the jurisdiction of the learned Rent Controller and without recording any reasons, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the said R.C.C. and the said order was confirmed even by the appellate authority. The learned Counsel also would contend that the change of user may have to be appreciated in the backdrop of the factual situation. This is not a case where the residential premises had been converted into a non-residential premises and hence, the ground of using the premises for other purpose may not be attracted, since it may not amount to changing the business. In other words, the learned Counsel would contend that merely because for some additional purpose the premises is put into use, the same cannot fall under the ground of change of user. The learned Counsel also pointed out certain findings relating to the structural alterations and the acts of waste and would contend that merely because the glass cabin with wooden frames had been erected, by that itself it cannot be said that these grounds are attracted. Relating to the other grounds, the learned Counsel would contend that the evidence available on record is insufficient and hence, the eviction ordered by both the Courts below cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his contentions. Contentions of Sri Ram Gopal :

(3.) Sri Ram Gopal, the learned Counsel representing the respondents had taken this Court through the oral and documentary evidence available on record and would contend that both on the grounds of change of user and structural alterations, the findings recorded by both the Courts below can be said to be concurrent findings. The learned Counsel also would submit that in the light of Ex.A2, it is clear that even in making deposit of rents, the tenant was not regular. This aspect also may be taken into consideration while deciding the ground of wilful default. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the eviction petition was suitably amended by taking the ground of denial of title also. The learned Counsel pointed out to the stand taken in the reply notice and also the stand taken in the counter in this regard and would maintain that this would amount to the denial of title. The learned Counsel also had pointed out that even the change of business may amount to change of user. The learned Counsel had drawn the' attention of this Court to the evidence available on record and had pointed out that the evidence of R.W. 1 is that occasionally he had bee doing the tailoring business and the fact that the same had been changed into S.T.D. booth and there was subletting of the premises to the Laxmi Kumari, these aspects cannot be in serious controversy especially in the light of Ex.B6. The Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions. The learned Counsel also made an attempt to convince the Court that though no findings had been recorded by the learned Rent Controller on certain grounds, if this Court is satisfied that the appellate authority arrived at the correct conclusion relating to the other grounds also, the said findings are to be confirmed.