ADI LAKSHMI Vs. SURYANARAYANAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition at the instance of the landlord arises under the Rent Control Act. The landlord filed a petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default and also material alterations in the premises. The Rent Controller ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the said order the tenant filed the appeal. On appeal the lower appellate court found that [there is no wilful default and there is also no material alteration and reversed the order of the Rent Controller. The landlord filed this revision petition. It may be stated that during the pendency of the revision the tenant died and his legal representatives were brought on record and the premises let out are non-residential.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord at the cutset contended that on the death of the tenant of a non-residential premises, the tenancy comes to an end and the legal heirs cannot be considered as tenants and it is further contended that the order of the lower appellate Court is not based upon proper evidence and circumstances. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the statutory tenant takes in the legal representa- tives of all tenants and as such the legal representatives should be considered as tenants and the order of the lower appellate court based upon an appreciation of totality of circumstances is sustainable.

(3.) The definition of tenant in Section 2 (ix) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act is as follows: