Appellate Authority competent to receive additional evidence.

1. Tenant in R.C.O.P.No. 18 of 1995, on the file of Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif, Srivilliputtur, is the revision petitioner. Eviction was sought on various grounds against the revision petitioner. Rent Controller dismissed the petition on the ground that the landlord and tenant relationship has not been proved. But, when the matter was taken in appeal, in R.C.A.No.8 of 1997, on the file of Appellate Authority (Sub Court. Srivilliputtur), it came to a different conclusion. It held that as between the parties, there is landlord and tenant relationship, and grounds of eviction have been proved. The decision of the Appellate Authority is challenged in this revision.

2. I do not want to go into the grounds of eviction since the argument centres round a narrow compass, namely, landlord and tenant relationship between the parties. Once it is found that there is landlord and tenant relationship, it is admitted that ground of eviction has been made out.

3. It is averred in the eviction petition that the building was let out to the tenant, petitioner herein, at the rate of Rs. 30 per month, for the purpose of running electrical workshop, that the tenant paid an advance of Rs. 4, 900 in four instalments, agreeing to pay the rent without any default, and also agreed that he will not sublet the building to any person without the written consent of the landlord, and also agreed that he will not use the building for any purpose other than the one for which it was let out. It is further said that the tenant agreed to vacate the premises on the expiry of ten years from 1975. It is said that the rent till January, 1985 was paid, and thereafter the tenant committed wilful default in paying rent. From 1.9.1998, rent was enhanced to Rs. 60. Notice was issued to the petitioner herein stating he has committed default in paying rent at the rate of Rs. 60. From 1.9.1992, rent was enhanced to Rs. 100, which was also intimated and acknowledged by the tenant. From 1.9.19 72 till November, 1995, rent has not been paid at the rate of Rs. 100. Petitioner also alleged that there are many buildings on the same row and all these will have to be demolished for putting up a charitable hospital for which he has obtained necessary plan and licence. It is also alleged that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of three years without reasonable cause. A lawyer’s notice was issued on 5.5.1995, terminating the rental arrangement and directing the tenant to vacate.

4. In the counter filed by the revision petitioner, the main contention raised was that the schedule building is situated in a poramboke land and he has put up the construction. He has taken electricity connection in his name and the telephone connection also stands in his name. Water connection has also been obtained in the name of the respondent, and long before 1980, he has installed various machineries in the property exercising his right as owner. It is further averred that when the respondent herein attempted to interfere with his possession, he was compelled to file a suit as O.S.No. 14 of 1996. on the file of District Munsif’s Court, Srivilliputtur, and the same is pending. He has stated that he never agreed to vacate the premises since the respondent herein has no right over the building. He has also denied the allegation that he has agreed to abide by the terms of the rental arrangement. It is said that no grounds have been made out for eviction. He prayed for dismissal of the eviction petition.

5. The Rent Controller, as per Order dated 30.9.1997. dismissed the eviction petition. Ex.A.1 to A.12 were marked on the side of petitioner. Exx.B.1 to B.7 were marked on the side of respondent. Oral evidence was also let in.

6. The Rent Controller was of the view that the various documents produced before him will not prove a rental arrangement, and accounts of the petitioner which ought to have been produced, have not been produced. He also came to