DASARI APPARAO Vs. MAMIDI HANUMAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 is directed against the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge (Appellate Rent Control Authority) Narasaraopet, directing the eviction of the two revision petitioners herein.

(2.) Facts necessary for the disposal of the revision petition briefly stated are these : The respondent herein is the owner of the petition schedule building situate at Chilakaluripet. It is a two-storeyed build- ing. The ground floor consisting of two portions, Originally both the ground floor portions were let out to the 1st revision petitioner (by name Appa Rao) on a monthly rent of Rs. 70/-, about ten years prior to the date of the petition. At that time, the respondent was living in the upstair portion with her family. According to the respondent landlady, in or about the year 1966-67, the 1st petitioner voluntarily vacated the down stair portion and thereupon the respondent occupied the same. But the 1st revision petitioner contended that he did not vacate the premises voluntarily but was forcibly evicted by the respondent and her supporters and also caused damages to the photo samans. He filed a suit, O.S. 14 of 1969 on the file of the II Addl. District Munsif's Court, Narasaraopet, for recovery of possession of the portion let out to him. He also filed another suit, O.S. 361 of 1 969 for recovery of damages for the loss caused to him. While the said suits were pending, the respondent herein let out one of the down-stair portions and the entire upstair portion to the 2nd revision petitioner in the year 1974 for a period of two years. The 2nd revision petitioner was carrying on busi. ness in liquor in the upstair portion and was keeping his stock on the ground floor portion. Meanwhile, 0.s,14 of 1969 was decreed for possession. The second suit for damages was dismissed. The landlady respondent then preferred an appeal. But before she obtained stay of execution, the 1st revision petitioner filed execution petition and obtained possesion of the portion let out to the 2nd revision petitioner on the ground floor. The execution petition so far it related to the portion occupied by the landlady was dismissed. After taking delivery of possession, the 1st respondent revision petitioner sub-let the said portion to the 2nd revision petitioner for a higher rent and is alleged to be bene fitting himself. It was contended by the landlady that the sub-letting was without her consent and knowledge. She thus laid an eviction petition against both the respondents revision petitioners. The two revision petitioners herein filed a common counter. It is admitted by the 1st revision petitioner that he took delivery of the petition schedule premises through Court and before that, the second revision petitioner was occupying the premises as tenant of the landlady. After the delivery was recorded, it was alleged that the landlady told the 2nd revision petitioner that he need not pay the rent as the Court directed payment of rent for that portion by the 1st revision petitioner at Rs. 35/- per month. It was denied in the counter that the 1st revision petitioner sub-let the premises to the 2nd revision-petitioner. Originally the 1st revision petitioner was having a photo-studio in the entire down-stair portion of the house as he got only possession of half of the house, he could not locate the studio. In view of the Court delivery, the 2nd respondent was also in a predicament. So, both the revision petitioners formed into a partnership to carry on trade in wines. They executed a partnership agreement dated 12-5 -1975. It was thus contended that there was no sub-letting at all and they thus resisted the eviction petition. The respondent-landlady examined herself as P.W.I. She examined an advocate-commissioner by name Mr. Inayya who was appointed for the purpose of inspecting the petition schedule premises. Ex. A-1 is the Commissioner's report. The 2nd revision petitioner himself examined as P.W.I, and relied upon Ex. B-1 dated 12-5-1975 the partnership agreement. Though the commissioner has been appointed to note the features of the premises, all that it would transpire from his evidence is that a wine shop was being run in the down stair portion. It is sianificant to note that both the Courts below did not give any weight to the report of the commissioner. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition holding that there was no sub-letting- The landlady carried the matter by way of appeal. The learned Subordinate Judge reversed the finding holding that the 1st revision-petitioner alone had the right to continue as a tenant consequent to the delivery of possession by the Court that the second revision petitioner had no right to be in the premises and there was sub letting to him by the first revision petitioner. He thus held that this sub letting was without any knowledge and consent of the landlady and therefore both the persons are liable to be evicted. He thus passed an order of eviction. Hence this revision petition.

(3.) It was at the outset contended by Mr. Ch. Sitaramaiah, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that by taking a partnership it cannot be said that the original tenant had sub-let the premises as to hold that there was any sub-letting in contravention of the provisions of the Act or that there was any sub-letting without the consent and knowledge of the landlady. It was on the other hand contended by Mr P.V.R. Sarrna that even the so-called agreement of partnership is not a reoistered one and that the same could have been got into existence just to circumvent the provisions of the Rent Control Act.