S. DASARADHA RAMA REDDI, J.

( 1 ) AS both the revision petitions involve common point, they are disposed of by a common judgment. C. R. P. No. 3129 of 1991

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a tenant of non-residential premises bearing Door no. 7/533 at Robertsonpet, Machilipatnam, belonging to the respondent. The respondent filed R. C. C. No. 19 of 1986 on the file of Rent Controller, machilipatnam, seeking eviction of the petitioner on the grounds of (1) default in payment of rents, (2) committing acts of waste and (3) for bonafide requirement. According to the averments in the eviction petition, the rent for premises was originally Rs. 600/ -. As the landlord wanted the premises to start his own business, the tenant promised to vacate the premises by the end of June, 1986 and pay in the meantime enhanced rent of Rs. 1,200/- per month. The landlord did not agree in the first instance but ultimately agreed to it. On 14-5-1986, the tenant sent Rs. 1,100/- towards rent due for this premises and another premises No. 7/532, which is the subject matter of C. R. P. No. 3130/91. Itwasappropriated by the landlord towardspartpaymentofrs. 600/- towards premises No. 7/533 and Rs. 500/- towards premises,no. 7/532, and sent the receipt. Later on, correspondence ensued wherein the landlord was taking the stand that stipulated rent is Rs. 1,200/- while as per tenant it is Rs. 600/ -. The tenant has been paying Rs. 1,100/- for both the premises, even after June, 1986, and the landlord has been appropriating it towards part-payment of the rent for the two premises. In the counter, the tenant denies the allegation that he promised to pay enhanced rent of Rs. 1,200/- and says that the landlord has illegally appropriated the rent paid towards part-payment and that he is not a defaulter. He also denied acts of waste and bona fide requirement of the landlord. The Rent Controller held that the rent is only Rs. 600/- and that there isnodefaulton the part of the tenant. However, he allowed the eviction petition on the ground that the tenant has committed acts of waste and also that the landlord wants the premises for his own requirement. On appeal, the appellate authority also found that there isno default on the part of the tenant in payment of rent and while upholding the order of the Rent Controller regarding bonafide requirement, reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on commission of acts of waste. Ultimately, the order of eviction was confirmed. Against this, the tenant has preferred this revision petition.

( 3 ) SRI D. Sudhakara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised the following contentions: (1) As even according to the eviction petition, the rent is more than rs. 1,000/- per month, the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act 1960 (for short the Act ) has no application and eviction petition is not maintainable in view of G. O. Ms. No. 636, dated, 29-12-1983 which exempts houses whose monthly rent exceeds rs. 1,000/- from the operation of provisions of the Act. (2) The eviction petition is not maintainable as all the partners of the tenant-firm, Babu and Co. , are not made parties to the eviction petition.

( 4 ) IT may be stated here that the learned counsel for the petitioner has not made any submission about bona fide requirement, and in my view rightly so, in view of the concurrent finding of fact by the two Courts below. I CONTENTION:

( 5 ) MR. B. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, raised a preliminary objection that it is not open to the petitioner to raise this contention as it was not raised either in the counter to the eviction petition or in the grounds of appeal before the appellate authority. He contends that the petitioner ought to have raised this objection at the earliest possible time before the Rent controller and having not raised it and having taken a chance and submitted to his jurisdiction, cannot raise this point now after the verdict has gone against him, and more so when no prejudice is cau

Click Here to Read the rest of this document