Allegation of using premises for different use not proved.

The revision petitioner is the tenant, who was successful before the Rent Controller but lost his case before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority reversed the eviction order of the Rent Controller on three grounds viz., the tenant/revision petitioner has committed wilful default in payment of rent for the months of July 1996 to September 1996; the revision petitioner is using the premises other than the purpose for which it was leased to and that the requirement of the premises by the landlord for the purpose of parking his car is bonafide. Such order of the Appellate Authority is under challenge in this revision.

2. The respondent is the landlord for the building in Door No.37, Bangaru Reddy Street, Ayanavaram. The revision petitioner is the tenant in a portion of that building for monthly rent of Rs.600/-, which according to the landlord is for residential purpose. It is further the case of the landlord that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent for the months of July 1996 to September 1996. The landlord caused lawyer's notice on 2.9.1996. After the said notice, the tenant sent cheque for Rs.1800/- towards rent for the months of April 1996 to June 1996. Thereafter the tenant has committed default in payment of rent wilfully from July 1996 to September 1996. According to the landlord, the petition premises was let out to the tenant for residential purpose but he is using the same for non residential purpose and running a grocery shop in the name and style of Shanthi stores without obtaining permission of the landlord. The petition premises is bona fide required to park the car of the landlord.

3. The petition is resisted by the tenant in the counter admitting the tenancy and stated that originally the tenant's sister was doing grocery business and thereafter the tenant himself is doing grocery business and he has not committed wilful default in payment of rent. It is stated that the tenant tendered the rental amount for the months of June and July 1996, but the landlord refused to receive the same. Hence, the tenant sent the rental amount by money order on 30th August 1996, which was also refused. The landlord received rent upto May 1996 but no receipt was given for the same. The tenant sent a cheque for a sum of Rs.1800/- towards the rent for the months of June to August 1996 through his counsel on 26.9.1996, since the landlord refused to receive the same by money order. The landlord received the cheque and sent rejoinder on 1.11.1996. The tenant also replied to the rejoinder on 18.11.1996 and also sent another cheque for Rs.1200/- towards rental amount for the months of September and October 1996. Therefore, the tenant has not committed any default, much less wilful default in payment of rent from July 1996 to September 1996. It is further stated that the premises is not required for parking the car.

4. Before the Rent Controller, the landlord examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P7. The tenant examined himself as R.W.1 and marked Exs.R1 to R13. The Rent Controller, in consideration of the evidence, oral and documentary, not accepting the case of the landlord, dismissed the petition on all the three grounds denying eviction as sought for by the landlord. On appeal, the Appellate Authority accepted the case of the landlord and ordered eviction as sought for by the landlord on all the three grounds, which is under challenge in this revision by the tenant as revision petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ tenant pointing out the stand taken by the revision petitioner in the counter filed before the Rent Controller, as well as under Ex.P2, reply notice dated 26.9.1996 and also in the reply to the rejoinder under Ex.P4 dated 18.11.1996 contended that the sister of the tenant was doing grocery business in the petition premises and thereafter, the revision petitioner is carrying on business. As regards wilful default, the learned counsel h