RAMULU Vs. DASOJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner here in is the tenant of a building belonging to respondents 1 to 3 which was let out to him in December 1962 on a monthly rental of Rs.55/-. The respondents filled a petition before the Rent Controller, Guntur for eviction of the petitioner here in took the premises on lease to run a retail vegetable trade. He did vegetable business for sometime. Ultimately, he shifted to another place for doing vegetable business and gave the scheduled premises on sub-lease to the second respondent. The petitioner herein had no right to sub-lease the premises without the consent of the owners. It was also stated that the petitioner here in was supplying electric current to third persons named in the petition. The Rent Controller held that the petitioner had sub-leased the premises to the fourth respondent herein. He also held that the supply of electrical energy to the third persons mentioned in the petition was unauthorised and beyond the scope of his tenancy. He was therefore using the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased and also committing acts of waste which would impair the material value and utility of the building. For these reasons, he found that the petitioner is liable to be evicted from the said premises under Sec. 10 (2) (ii) (a) (b) 10 (2) iii (b) and 10 (2) (iii) (c) of the Act.

(2.) The petitioner here in preferred an appeal to the subordinate Judge, Guntur, The appellate court diferred from the Rent Controller on the question of sub-lease. He held after considesing the evidence in the case that the first respondent himself had been doing business in kerosene in premises though the licence had been obtained by the fourth respondent and therefore, had not sub-leased the premises to the fourth respondent. The learned Subordinate Judge however held that the petitioner was supplying current to one Naga Melleswar Rao and also to a bunk situated in front of the schedule property without the consent of the landlord. By this act, he has exposed the owners of the premises to the risk of being penalised by the electricity authorities besides disconnecting the supply to the petition schedule shop. Hence, ths petitioner was liable to be evicted under Sec. 10 (2) (iii) of the Act, In the result, he dismissed the appeal. As against the said judgment, the tenant has preferred this revision petition.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge after considering the evidence in the case has come to the conclusion that the case of sub-lease has not been made out. I see no reason to interfere with the said finding of fact.