A. GANGADHARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS case illustrates the need for our State Legislature to suitably amend the definition of tenan in the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, as the Gujarat State Legislature did, so as to benefit any member of the tenant s fiamily carrying on business in a non-residential building.

( 2 ) SRI Mootha Venkateswara Rao, the petitioner, is the owner of the building bearing door No. 14/20-13-18 situate in Kakinada Municipality. It was taken on lease by Budharaju Narayanaraju, the respondent in the rent control petition, even prior to 1957 for running a hotel from the guardian of the petitioner, who was then a minor, on a monthly rental of Rs. 150/, according to the petitioner herein, Budharaju Narayanaraju without any manner of right and without his consent has made a number of alterations to the building. He demolished dry latrines, constructed new septic latrines, removed the flooring, inserted wash basins in the wall by putting boles, ranpipe through walls, constructed a big water tank on the garage for storing water, and removed the window of a room for air-conditioning it. As water is dripping into the garage, it is rendered unfit for use. Inspite of the objections taken by the guardian of the petitioner, Narayanaraju did not remove the objectionable consturctions. The petitioner alleges that the guardian was not diligent in taking steps for eviction of Narayanaraju. After completing his medical studies, the petitioner has filed this petition for eviction of narayanaraju on the ground that he had committed acts of waste, which had materially impaired the value and utility of the building within the meaning of Section 10 (2) (iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the rent Control act ).

( 3 ) NARAYANARAJU resisted the petition by contending that he was running a big hotel in the building, that the alternations made by him were necessary for the running of the hotel, that he made the alternations at the instance of the Health Department after obtaining the sanction of the Municipality and to the knowledge of the petitioner s guardian, that they do not constitute acts of waste which materially impair the value or utility of the buildiug and also that the petition was not bonafide, for. when he refused to comply with the petitioner s request for further enhancement of rent, this petition was filed.

( 4 ) THE Rent Controller held that the constructions made by Narayanraju were acts of waste which would impair the utility or value of the building, and therefore, he directed eviction of Narayanaraju. Thereupon, Narayanaraju filed an appeal before the Subordinate Judge, Kakinada. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the alterations or constructions made by Narayanaraju were necessary for running a hotel, that they were not acts of waste, and they bad not impaired the utility or value of the building. He also held that the landlord must be deemed to have acquiesced, in the matter since he kept quiet for a number of years when the tenant was carrying out the alterations and constructions. In the result, he allowed the appeal and dismissed the petition for eviction.

( 5 ) QUESTIONING the order of the Subordinate Judge, the petitioner has filed this revision in this Court. During the pendency of this revision, Narayanaraju, the tenant, died. Thereupon, a petition was filed stating that Narayanaraju had executed a registered will on 10th March, 1977, whereunder he had bequeathed the hotel business and the rights in the building to bis son, suryanarayanaraju and, therefore, Suryanarayanaraju might be brought on record as the legal representative of Narayanaraju in the revision petition. That petition was allowed and Suryanarayanaraju was brought on record as the legal representative of Narayanaraju.

( 6 ) WHEN the petition came up for bear

Click Here to Read the rest of this document