POKARMAL DADICH Vs. VANKAYALA LAKSHMIKANTHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the lower Courts have ordered eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the non-residential premises in proceedings initiated in 1973 (HRC No. 2/74) by the landlady who has since died and is being represented now by her legal heirs. Eviction has been ordered by the Rent Controller on the grounds of (i) unlawful sub-letting to a Bank; (ii) such sub letting to Ashoka Textiles; (iii) user for a different purpose than was authorised, and (iv) commission of acts of waste. On appeal, the appellate authority confirmed these findings except the one relating to sub-letting to Ashoka Textiles.

(2.) The business premises in question is on the main Road at Visakhapatnam. The petitioner came into possession according to the landlady under Ex A-1 deed dated 21 -7-1963 and according to the petitioner under a registered lease deed, Ex. B-1, dated 9-9-1963. The lease was to be for 10 years at a monthly rental of Rs. 400/-. The petitioner took it for his business but soon thereafter the landlady agreed for remodelling or conversion of the front portion for sub-lease to the Canara Bank and the petitioner agreed to invest monies for that purpose. It was agreed that the said sub-lease was to last for 8 years. The petitioner collected sub-lease rental at Rs 550/- P M. from the Bank for 3 years and then at Rs. 950/- P M. for another 6 years.

(3.) It is now admitted by the petitioner and it is also clear from the evidence that the Canara Bank actually occupied that portion of 3000 Sq. feet from November, 1964 and continued till 23-9-1974 by which date the eviction notice dt. 20-3-72 (Ex B 23) was issued and the eviction petition dated 5-12-73 was filed in the trial Court. The Canara Bank, according to the landlady, continued as an unauthorised tenant contrary to the terms of the permission l e t t e r, Ex. B-56, dated 7-10-1963 granted by the landlady agreeing for a sub-lease for eight years. It is also the landlady's case that there is a sub-lease of the long room (behind the Banking Hall) in favour of Ashoka Textiles while it is the case of the petitioner-tenant that the said Ashoka Textiles is a partnership firm which occupied the enclosed-passage portion in 1969, and that this is not a sub-lessee, that the partners thereof are the petitioner's tenant's wife, the-tenants-brother's or their wifes - in all five partners - with equal shares It is also the landlady's case that while the tenant was to conduct his own business - i.e., soda business, supply of building material and blue metal, and sand - the conduct of cloth business through Ashoka Textiles amounted to a different user. (Of course, there was another allegation that Ashoka Dresses business was also there but it is not now in dispute that Ashoka Dresses business is elsewhere). The, other allegation is that the tenant who agreed under Ex. B-1 registered deed dated 9-9-1963 to carry out all nacessary periodical repairs - including white washing and also to keep it good repair and not to commit acts of waste had violated the said undertaking to such a grave extent that the building stood totally damaged by the date of the petition. The Advocate -Commissioner's report is relied on by the lower Courts in support of this plea of waste. (It was of course alleged that certain sheds on the first floor were demolished but this was found against the land-lady). The question of wilful default was held against the landlady by both the Courts.