PODUGU APPA RAO Vs. GRANDHI SATHIRAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is preferred by the legal representatives of the tenant against the orders in RCA No. 4 of 2001 on the file of the Appellate Authority (Senior Civil Judge), Vizianagaram, dated 16. 4. 2005. The parties are being referred to as 'the landlord' and 'the tenant'.

(2.) THE landlord filed RCC 10 of 1996 seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of wilful default, bona fide personal requirement, committing acts of waste affecting the value and utility of the building and sub-letting the premises. The learned Rent Controller negatived the grounds of bona fide personal requirement, wilful default and sub-letting the premises pleaded by the landlord, but upheld the ground of acts of waste affecting the value and utility of the building and ordered eviction of the tenant. In appeal by the tenant before the lower appellate court challenging the finding of the learned Rent controller to the extent of acts of waste affecting the value and utility of the building, the landlord also filed cross-objections to the extent of findings recorded against him. Under the impugned order the lower appellate Court has upheld the ground of acts of waste affecting the value and utility of the building, by agreeing with the findings of the learned Rent Controller and has also upheld the wilful default pleaded by the landlord against the tenant. However, the ground of sub-letting was concurrently rejected by the appellate court also, so also the ground of personal requirement.

(3.) IN this revision the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant contends that the findings of both the courts below that the tenant having committed the acts of waste of building is clearly unsustainable in view of the fact that the building admittedly is more than 70 years old and the landlord has not carried out any repairs. He also contends that Ex. A5-letter permits the tenant to undertake repairs and the cost of repairs will be reimbursed to the tenant only if he obtains prior permission of the landlord. He, therefore, pleads that it is not as if that the repairs were totally not permissible. He also contends that the alleged repairs of door ways etc. alleged against the tenant, even if it amounts to alteration, it does not amount to affecting the utility of the building and as such the order of eviction is not warranted on the facts and circumstances of the case.