JAMMULA NARASIMHULU Vs. KOTINI SITARAM AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by the landlord of a shop room situated in Berhampur town, against the concurrent decisions of the House Rent Controller and the appellate authority (Additional District Magistrate) dismissing his application under Section 7 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the eviction of his tenant (opposite party No. 1) from the said shop room.

(2.) OPPOSITE party No. 1 has been continuing as a tenant of the said shop room for a long time. On the 3rd January, 1957 (when the Act was not in force in the State) the Petitioner issued a notice to the opposite party terminating the tenancy and calling upon him to pay arrear rent due to him and also to deliver possession of the shop room by 31st January, 1957. The Petitioner further stated that if the premises were not vacated by that date steps would be taken to evict the opposite party and damages would be claimed from him at Rs. 30/ - per month. There was also a statement in the notice to the effect that the Petitioner wanted the shop room for his own use. To that notice opposite party No. 1 sent a reply, on 30 -1 -1957, through his advocate, saying that he was paying rent regularly at Rs. 18/ - per month, but that the previous month's rent, though tendered, was refused by the Petitioner. He further stated that he was taking steps to secure some other shop room for himself and he hoped that within 6 months he would be able to vacate the premises. Thereafter nothing further happened. The opposite party tendered rent which was again refused by the Petitioner. Thereupon the latter opened a Current Account in his name with the Urban Co -operative Bank, Berhampur and regularly deposited the monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 19/ -. Even after the expiry of the period of six months, the Petitioner took 110 steps to serve a fresh notice to quit on the opposite party nor did he take any steps for his eviction, nor did he care to accept the rent tendered. In the meantime, the (Orissa House Rent Control) Act came into force with effect from the 2nd January, 1959, in the town of Berhampur. The Petitioner then applied to the House e Rent Controller under Section 7 of the Act, on 19th May, 1959 for eviction of the opposite party. The grounds for his eviction were stated to be:

(3.) THE two lower Courts concurrently held against the Petitioner on all the aforesaid three grounds. The allegation of damage to the house was rightly not pressed before us. Mr. Ramdas's main contention on behalf of the Petitioner is that in respect of the other two grounds the two lower Courts have committed an error of law which was apparent on the face of the record.