( 1 ) THIS Revision is directed against the order made in R. C. A. No. 18/92 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, visakhapatnam, reversing the order made in r. C. C. No. 38/85 on the file of Principal district Munsif-cum-Rent Controller, visakhapatnam.

( 2 ) FOR the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the court of first instance, as landlords and the tenant.

( 3 ) THE landlords had filed R. C. C. No. 38/85 on the file of Principal district Munsif-cum-Rent Controller, visakhapatnam against the tenant on the ground of wilful default and also on certain other grounds including the ground of change of user of the premises. Originally, the rent was Rs. 50. 00 and the premises was taken for the purpose of running cloth business and subsequently it was changed to kirana business. Originally, the tenancy commenced during the life time of the father of the tenant and after his death, his son is continuing the business in the same premises. But there is some material to show that there is change of business. It is not in dispute, but the stand taken by the tenant is that the change of business is with the oral consent of the landlords. The tenant had denied all the allegations. P. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined. P. W. 1 is the son of the 1st revision Petitioner i. e. , the first landlord and p. W. 2 is the clerk. Exs. A-1 to A-3 were marked. The tenant had examined himself as r. W. 1 and apart from it R. W. 2 was also examined and Exs. B-1 to B-19 were marked and the Court of first instance had ordered eviction on the ground of wilful default only and aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the tenant and the appeal was allowed on 16-7-1993 and aggrieved by the said order made in R. C. A. No. 18/92, the present Revision is filed.

( 4 ) SRI C. Subba Rao, the learned Counsel representing the landlords-Revision petitioners had submitted that as far as the ground of wilful default is concerned, the material available on record may not be sufficient to substantiate the same as against the tenant and hence the learned Counsel had proceeded to make his submissions relating to the ground of change of user only. The learned Counsel had drawn my attention to the findings of both the Courts relating to point No. 2 and had pointed out how the appellate authority had gone wrong while deciding this aspect. The learned Counsel had drawn my attention to Sec. 10 (2) (ii) (b) of A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act, 1960, for short hereinafter called "the Act" and had contended that in the absence of written consent by the landlords, the tenant is precluded from using the premises for any other purpose other than the purpose for which it was let-out. The learned Counsel had strongly placed reliance on Smt. K. Rachamma v. Smt. Bimal Bai and another and had drawn my attention to the relevant observations in the said Judgment.

( 5 ) SRI Venkata Ramana, representing sri D. V, Seetharama Murthy, the learned counsel for the respondent while making his submissions on behalf of the tenant had drawn my attention to the pleadings and also to the respective portions of the evidence which had been recorded in the R. C. C. The learned Counsel had contended that the father was not examined at all and hence the contention of the landlords that there was no consent for the change of business cannot be believed and they failed to substantiate the same. The learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to the pleading in the R. C. C. and had stated that the eviction petition was filed under Section 10 (2) (i) of the Act only and the provision relating to the change of use was not mentioned. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to ground (j) i. e. ,"the respondent is liable to be evicted on the grounds of wilful default, denial of title, acts of waste, acts of nuisance, from the schedule premises. "after drawing my attention to the relevant portions of the pleadings, the learned coun