( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of eviction, dated 21-8-1998, passed by the learned Rent controller (Junior Civil Judge), Palakol in r. C. C. No. 24 of 1984 as affirmed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur by order, dated 29-8-2000, in C. M. A. No. 18 of 1998, this civil revision petition was filed.

( 2 ) THE facts are not in dispute. The first petitioner took the petition schedule building from the first respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 300. 00 for a period of 5 years from 1-4-1976 to 31-3-1981 under a registered lease deed for running a canteen (hotel ). During the subsistence of the said lease, he took the upstairs portion of the petition schedule building on a monthly rent of Rs. 80. 00 under a registered lease deed, dated 24-8-1977. After expiry of the lease period, the first petitioner continued as tenant by enhancing the rent to rs. 500/- per month from 1-10-1982. While the case of the first respondent was that the first petitioner on 1-1-1984 executed fresh unregistered lease deed for a period of 5 years, the case of the first petitioner was that he did not execute the lease deed but it was only the second petitioner that executed the lease deed. It was also the case of the first respondent that the first petitioner stopped payment of rent to the first respondent from May 1984 and sublet the petition schedule building to the second petitioner and also committed acts of waste by constructing staircase by removing wooden staircase without obtaining prior consent from the first respondent and without approval of the Municipality. Hence the first respondent laid R. C. C. No. 24 of 1984 seeking eviction of the first petitioner herein on the following three grounds: (1) Wilful default in payment of rent, (2) Subletting the petition schedule building, and (3) Committing acts of waste. The said R. C. C. No. 24 of 1984 was preceded by exchange of legal notices wherein the first petitioner denied relationship of landlord and tenant between the first respondent and himself and pleaded that only the second petitioner, the maternal uncle of the first petitioner, was lessee. Along with the reply notice, the 2nd petitioner sent demand draft for rs. 2,000/- to the first respondent towards monthly rent for the petition schedule building for four months from June to september of 1984 and the same was returned by the respondent on the ground that the 2nd petitioner is not the lessee.

( 3 ) THE defence taken with regard to the wilful default in the counter was that the rent for the months of June and July of 1984 was sought to be adjusted for construction of pucca stair case and that for the months of August and September of 1984 the rent could not be paid as the first respondent was on a pilgrimage. With regard to the subletting, the case of the first petitioner was that the second petitioner was managing the hotel even from the days when the petition schedule building was under the lease of the father of the first petitioner i. e. , prior to 1976; that the eviction petition filed by the first respondent against the father of the first petitioner ended in compromise and, in the compromise decree, the first petitioner gave up the plea of subletting the petition schedule building to the second petitioner and hence as the second petitioner had been in possession from the days of the father of the first petitioner, it was too late to contend that the second petitioner was a sublessee in the petition schedule building. With regard to letting out a small portion in the veranda to the pro-forma second respondent for running a pan shop, he stated that the second respondent was only a licensee and the moment notice was issued, the second respondent vacated that premises. With regard to the acts of waste, the case of the petitioners was that in the place of dilapidated wooden staircase, the petitioners constructed pucca staircase and it was only an improvement but not act of waste committed on the petition schedule bu