B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) ). THE petitioner is the tenant in this Civil Revision Petition filed under sec. 22 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, for short the Act . He is aggrieved by an order passed by the learned Principal subordinate Judge, Vijayawada in R. C. A. No. 33 of 1982 dt. 4-2-1994 reversing the order in R. C. C. No. 84 of 1980 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, vijayawada dated 23-1-1982.

( 2 ) ). The petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord. The respondent herein filed petition under Sec. 10 (2) (i) of Act XV of 1960 seeking eviction of the petitioner herein from the petition schedule premises on the ground that the petitioner herein had committed wilful default in payment of rent and also on the ground that the petitioner herein had secured alternative building bearing No. 11-62-67 in the same road very near to the petition schedule premises and is carrying on business exclusively in the building bearing No. 11-62-67. Thus the respondent herein sought eviction of the petitioner from the petition schedule premises on both the grounds. The petitioner herein opposed the application. It is the case of the petitioner that the rents shall be paid whenever demanded by him. The rents used to be collected in lumpsum manner. There was never any demand from the respondent-landlord and failure by the petitioner herein to comply with such demand. There is no default whatsoever muchless any wilful default in payment of rents is the case of the petitioner. The petition is filed to harass and only with a view to enhance the rent in respect of the premises is his further case. It is the case of the petitioner that the building bearing no. 11-62-67 is secured as an additional accommodation and not as alternate accommodation. The plea of the respondent-landlord that the petitioner herein is carrying on business exclusively in the said building is denied.

( 3 ) ON the above pleadings and on the basis of the material available on record, the learned Rent Controller held that the petitioner herein had committed wilful default in payment of rents and the conduct in making payment regularly in irregular manner would show supine indifference and negligence in payment of rent. On that ground, the learned Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the petitioner herein from the petition schedule premises. So far as the question relating to the petitioner herein securing alternate accomodation, the learned Rent Controller held that the petitioner herein secured premises bearing No. 11-62-67 only as an additional accommodation for the business but not as an alternative accommodation. Accordingly he rejected the plea of the respondent-landlord for eviction of the petitioner. However, the learned Rent Controller directed the eviction of the petitioner herein from the petition schedule premises on the ground of his committing wilful default. Both the parties preferred R. C. As. against the said judgment. R. C. A. 33/82 was filed by the respondent-landlord and r. C. A. 35/82 by the petitioner herein.

( 4 ) IN the appeal under the revision, the appellate Court framed the point for consideration in the following manner:"whether the accommodation secured by the respondent is only an additional accommodation and not an alternative accommodation warranting dismissal of eviction and whether it has ceased to occupy the schedule building four months prior to filing of the petition? there is no dispute whatsoever in the instant case that the petitioner herein secured building bearing D. No. 11-62-67 situated at Canal Road, Vijayawada for the purpose of doing his business. The only question is as to whether the petitioner herein secured the said building as an alternative accommodation or as an additional accommodation. In the Rent Control case, the respondent-landlord in categorical terms pleaded that the petitioner herein has secured alternative building bearing D. No. 11-62-67 in the same

Click Here to Read the rest of this document