(1.) HEARD Sri J. Ugranarasimha, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. S. Narayana, the learned Counsel for the respondent.
(2.) THE instant Civil Revision Petition by the tenant is directed against an order passed by the learned Appellate Authority in reversing the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. The Appellate Authority ordered eviction of the petitioner herein from the petition schedule premises on the ground that he is using the petition schedule premises "for other purposes and not for the purpose for which it was let out, that is to say, for doing business".
(3.) THE respondent herein filed R. C. C. No. 27 of 1991 on the file of the learned Rent Controller-cum-Principal District Munsif, Tirupathi under Section 10 (1), (2) (i), (2) (iii), (2) (vi), 3 (a) (i) (b) and under Section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act' ). In the said petition, the respondent herein alleged that the petition schedule premises (for short 'the premises') was leased out in favour of the petitioner herein for a period of three years from 1-10-1985 to 31-9-1988, but the petitioner herein failed to vacate the premises and hand over the vacant possession of the same to the respondent herein. It is alleged that the petitioner herein has been irregular in payment of rents and put the premises to use for the purpose other than that for which it was let out and committed acts of waste impairing the material value and utility of the premises. It is the specific case of the respondent-landlord that the petitioner herein, for the last 3 years, has not been carrying on wine business under the name and style "vinayaka Wine Shop", but involved in creating nuisance by gathering friends and affecting the peace and tranquillity in the neighbourhood. It is also pleaded that the petitioner herein is having an alternative accommodation and is no longer in need of the premises since he has ceased to do business and secured employment.