C. V. N. SASTRY, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a tenant s revision against the orders of eviction concurrently passed against him by the Rent Controller and the appellate authority under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, (for short the Act ). The petition for eviction was filed by the land-lady on the following grounds: (1) bona fide requirement; (2) that the tenant has secured alternative accommodation and ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months; (3) that the tenant used the building for the purpose other than that for which it was leased; (4) wilful default in payment of rents.

( 2 ) THE Rent Controller ordered eviction upholding the first three grounds and rejected the last ground.

( 3 ) ON appeal, the appellate authority confirmed the order of eviction on all the three grounds which found favour with the rent Controller. It may be mentioned that during the pendency of the appeal before the appellate authority the land-lady died and her legal representatives have been brought on record.

( 4 ) SRI T. Veerabhadraiah, the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant, has contended that on the death of the land-lady the ground of bonafide requirement pleaded by her in the eviction petition has disappeared and it no longer survived and the appellate authority has totally ignored this aspect. Its judgment is thereby vitiated. In the eviction petition, the land-lady pleaded that she required additional accommodation for the purpose of housing her sister s grand-children chikkala Venkatrama, Chikkala Venkata radha and Chikkala Venkata Rajanikumar who lost their mother. She wanted to educate them at Vizianagaram and keep them with her as they would be of some assistance to her. The land-lady was a widow who had no children of her own. The tenant resisted the plea of the land-lady by contending that the land-lady, who was already in occupation and enjoyment of a major portion of the building, did not need any additional accommodation and that the alleged requirement set up by her is far-fetched and it is only a ruse as she did not make any whisper about it either in the notice issued by her or in the suit O. S. No. 211 of 1983 which was earlier filed by her against him.

( 5 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge (appellate authority), while dealing with this question, adverted to the fact that the land-lady died during the pendency of the appeal but failed to consider the question whether the requirement originally pleaded by the land-lady survived after her death. The learned Subordinate Judge merely brushed aside the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-tenant with the following observations:"perhaps the land-lady might have wanted to get the grand-children of her sister to assist her in her old-age days. Therefore, i find no force in the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant- tenant and also the contention of the appellant-tenant that the land-lady is not having any bona fide requirement of petition schedule building for her personal use and occupation cannot be accepted. "the appellate authority nowhere considered the effect of the death of the land-lady on the question of bona fide requirement originally pleaded in the petition. I am, therefore, inclined to agree with the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the finding of the appellate authority on this question is vitiated and it is unsustainable. This, however, does not conclude the matter since the eviction has been ordered on two other grounds also.

( 6 ) AS regards the next ground of eviction, namely, that the tenant secured alternative accommodation and ceased to occupy the petition schedule building for more than four months, it was admitted by the tenant in the counter filed by him in the eviction petition that he shifted his residence along with his family members to another building in Hajsherif street which was owned by his wife. It was, howev

Click Here to Read the rest of this document