The acceptance of rent by a landlord, without written consent, does not constitute an assent to the altered user of the building by the tenant, and the landlord can still seek eviction on the ground of an unauthorized user of the premises.

( 1 ) DR. Mrs. Chacko runs a nursing home at Kakinada in the premises belonging to the respondent. The latter applied for the eviction of Mr. and Mrs. Chacko citing them as respondents 1 and 2 to her petition. The case of the landlady is that she let out the premises to the husband for use as residence but contrary to the understanding, he allowed the wife to have a nursing home within the premises. The applicant for eviction also urged that she requires the use of her building for her own occupation as she is now obliged to reside as tenant in a house which is not her own. There are also other grounds urged to maintain the prayer for eviction but they are not material for the decision of this case.

( 2 ) THE respondents filed separate answers to the landlady s pleading. The husband denied that he is the tenant. His plea is that it is the wife that entered into the agreement of tenancy. He was making payments towards rent but it was only on behalf of his wife. The main contest was raised by the latter who claimed that she was the tenant and that the premises were let out and used for a non- residential purpose from the outset, She denied that the building had ever been put to residential user. She called in question the landlady s plea that the building was needed bonafide for personal occupation.

( 3 ) THE controller, who decided the application, negatived the the landlady s prayer for eviction and held that the tenancy argreement was entered into with the wife and not the husband, There were also findings that the premises were let out for a nursing home and hospital and that the request for personl occupation was unjustified. On an appeal by the landlady, the appellate authority came to a different conclusion on both aspects. The subordinate Judge, kakinada, held on appeal that Mr, Chacko was the tenant and not his wife and that the building was used for a non-residential purpose contrary to the tenancy agreement and without obtaining the permission of the landlady. The plea of requirement for personal occupation also prevailed with the appellate court.

( 4 ) DR. Mrs. Chacko, the 2nd respondant before the Controller has now preferred this revision petition impleading her husband also as a formal party hereto. But the contest is between the revision petitioner and the landlady hereinafter referred to as the respondent, the finding that the husband and not the wife was the tenant is questioned by Mr. Poornaiah, mainly on the ground that the accounts kept by Mrs. Chacko reveal beyond doubt that the rent was paid by her from out of her profecsional income. Counsel subsmits that the landlady could hardly disclaim knowledge that a nursing home was run by the doctor in the disputed premises continuously for nearly twenty years. The landlady never demurred to the use of the premises for that purpose. It is submitted that the long, open aud notorious user of the premises by the doctor for the nursing home gives rise to the inference that the landlady acquiesced in such occupation The awareness of the landlady that the actual occupant of the premises is the wife, coupled with the entries in the accounts kept by Mrs, Chacko bearing out payment of rents by her, prove, something more that) that the defacto occupant was the tenant. It is urged that the proper inferences from these proved facts were not drawn. The finding of the appellate authority thus suffers from that omission. Besides, it is also vitiated by positive errors inasmuch as the appellate authority laid undue stress on the non-production of the receipts and the omission of Mr. Chacko to give evidence.

( 5 ) I do not think the criticism of the counsel is well founded. There were admittedly receipts issued by the landlady for the rents paid to her. All of them are said to have been lost. The appellate court was not inclined to accept the truth of this explanation. It pointed out that even if it be true that the earlier receipts were not preserved, in any case