VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. BUDNARAJU NARAYANARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case illustrates the need for our State Legislature to suitably amend the definition of 'tenan' in the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, as the Gujarat State Legislature did, so as to benefit any member of the tenant's fiamily carrying on business in a non-residential building.

(2.) Sri Mootha Venkateswara Rao, the petitioner, is the owner of the building bearing door No. 14/20-13-18 situate in Kakinada Municipality. It was taken on lease by Budharaju Narayanaraju, the respondent in the rent control petition, even prior to 1957 for running a hotel from the guardian of the petitioner, who was then a minor, on a monthly rental of Rs. 150/, According to the petitioner herein, Budharaju Narayanaraju without any manner of right and without his consent has made a number of alterations to the building. He demolished dry latrines, constructed new septic latrines, removed the flooring, inserted wash basins in the wall by putting boles, ranpipe through walls, constructed a big water tank on the garage for storing water, and removed the window of a room for air-conditioning it. As water is dripping into the garage, it is rendered unfit for use. Inspite of the objections taken by the guardian of the petitioner, Narayanaraju did not remove the objectionable consturctions. The petitioner alleges that the guardian was not diligent in taking steps for eviction of Narayanaraju. After completing his medical studies, the petitioner has filed this petition for eviction of Narayanaraju on the ground that he had committed acts of waste, which had materially impaired the value and utility of the building within the meaning of Section 10 (2) (iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Control Act').

(3.) Narayanaraju resisted the petition by contending that he was running a big hotel in the building, that the alternations made by him were necessary for the running of the hotel, that he made the alternations at the instance of the Health Department after obtaining the sanction of the Municipality and to the knowledge of the petitioner's guardian, that they do not constitute acts of waste which materially impair the value or utility of the buildiug and also that the petition was not bonafide, for. when he refused to comply with the petitioner's request for further enhancement of rent, this petition was filed.