1. This revision is preferred by the legal representatives of the tenant against the orders in RCA No. 4 of 2001 on the file of the Appellate Authority (Senior Civil Judge), Vizianagaram, dated 16.4.2005. The parties are being referred to as 'the landlord' and 'the tenant'.

2. The landlord filed RCC 10 of 1996 seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of wilful default, bona fide personal requirement, committing acts of waste affecting the value and utility of the building and sub-letting the premises. The learned Rent Controller negatived the grounds of bona fide personal requirement, wilful default and sub-letting the premises pleaded by the landlord, but upheld the ground of acts of waste affecting the value and utility of the building and ordered eviction of the tenant. In appeal by the tenant before the lower appellate court challenging the finding of the learned Rent Controller to the extent of acts of waste affecting the value and utility of the building, the landlord also filed cross-objections to the extent of findings recorded against him. Under the impugned order the lower appellate Court has upheld the ground of acts of waste affecting the value and utility of the building, by agreeing with the findings of the learned Rent Controller and has also upheld the wilful default pleaded by the landlord against the tenant. However, the ground of sub-letting was concurrently rejected by the appellate court also, so also the ground of personal requirement.

3. In this revision the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant contends that the findings of both the courts below that the tenant having committed the acts of waste of building is clearly unsustainable in view of the fact that the building admittedly is more than 70 years old and the landlord has not carried out any repairs. He also contends that Ex.A5-letter permits the tenant to undertake repairs and the cost of repairs will be reimbursed to the tenant only if he obtains prior permission of the landlord. He, therefore, pleads that it is not as if that the repairs were totally not permissible. He also contends that the alleged repairs of door ways etc. alleged against the tenant, even if it amounts to alteration, it does not amount to affecting the utility of the building and as such the order of eviction is not warranted on the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord contends that the concurrent findings of both the courts below do not deserve to be interfered with as they are based upon evidence on record. The learned counsel contends that the acts of waste which formed basis of ground for eviction was even justified by the advocate-commissioner who had inspected the building and filed a detailed report which is marked as Ex.C1. He also contends that R.W.5 who is examined on behalf of the tenant (son of original tenant) admitted to the alterations and acts of waste as alleged by the landlord and as such no interference is warranted by this Court. So far as other grounds which were held against the landlord are concerned, there is no serious contest and as such the only question that falls for consideration in this revision is whether the orders of both the courts below ordering eviction of the tenant on the ground of committing acts of waste affecting the value and utility of the building is justified?

5. Section 10 (2) (iii) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short "the Act") provides that the landlord is entitled to seek eviction of the tenant on the ground that the tenant has committed acts of waste which is likely to impair materially the value and utility of the building. A similar case came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurbachan Singh and another Vs. Shivalak Rubber Industries and others 1 wherein the Supreme Court observed as follows,

"12. Section 13(2) (iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act which provides a ground