V. BHASKARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE judgment in RCA No. 31/1988 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, dated 26-9-1998 dismissing the appeal and confirming the eviction order dated 22-8-1988 passed by the learned Rent Controller-cum-Principal District Munsif, Vizianagaram, in RCC No. 61/1980 is assailed in this CRP, by the legal representatives of the deceased-tenant.

( 2 ) THE respondent-landlord filed the eviction petition against the original tenant mainly on two grounds viz. , (1) bona fide requirement of the demised building for personal occupation; and (2) acts of waste and damage to the building. The petition is resisted by the original tenant, who died during the pendency of the petition, before the Rent Controller. In the counter filed on his behalf both the grounds are denied.

( 3 ) THE parties went for trail with the above pleadings. While so, an Advocate-Commissioner was appointed to see and assess the acts of waste attributed to the tenant. The Commissioner submitted a report stating not only regarding certain damage, but also regarding a Sweat-Meat Shop being run by a third party and main hotel also being run by another party. Based on the above report, the ground of sub-lease has been taken. The learned Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition holding that the landlord has established by convincing. evidence that (1) the tenant has sub-let the premises; (2) committed acts of waste in respect of petition a and b schedule properties and (3) he bona fidely requires the building for his personal use. The eviction order has been challenged before the appellate authority in RCA No. 31 of 1988. Additional evidence was adduced before the appellate Court. Exs. A1 to A8 and Exs. Bl to B7 are marked for either party. The learned appellate Judge upon re-assessment of the evidence, dismissed the appeal confirming the eviction order dated 22-8-1988 and granted three months time from the date of judgment to the tenants to vacate the petition schedule premises. However, the appellate authority found that the bona fide requirement of the landlord is not established.

( 4 ) THE short question that arises for consideration is whether the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller as confirmed by the appellate authority is sustainable.

( 5 ) SRI Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the landlord is only a co-owner having 10% undivided share and he cannot maintain an eviction petition without impleading the other co-owners. He relied on the judgments in S. Sarvaiah v. Prabhavathi, 1997 (3) ALD 835 = 1997 (4) ALT 240 and Y. Sai Baba v. M/s. Rawalmal Narayandas and another, 1997 (4) ALD 676 = 1997 (2) ALT 464. He further contended that the sub-lease by the tenant in favour of Jagadeswar Rao is not made out satisfactorily as he was only managing the hotel on behalf of original tenant Naryana and there is no evidence of parting of exclusive possession to the subtenant. He pointed out that all the documents disclose that P. K. Prasad s/o. Narayana (original tenant) was conducting the hotel business. As regards the damage he contended that neither the tenant intended. to cause any damage nor its impairment of utility is established. Thus, he argued that CRP may be allowed and the eviction petition may be dismissed.

( 6 ) ON the other hand Sri Venkateswar Rao Gudapati learned Counsel for the landlord contended that the concurrent findings of two Courts below regarding the damage and sub-lease are very well sustainable and hence there is no merit in the CRP. As regards the maintainability he argued that the position obtaining as on the date of filing is that the landlord was the sole owner. Subsequently there has been a compromise between himself and his wife and adopted son. In any case he argued that there is no conflict of interest among the co-owners and hence there is no need to implead them. In this context he pointed out that the appeal was preferre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document