Kutakamsetti Ramulu vs Kotta Aleka Dasoji and others

Mr. Alladi Kuppuswami, J.—The petitioner here in is the tenant of a building belonging to respondents 1 to 3 which was let out to him in December 1962 on a monthly rental of Rs. 55/-. The respondents filled a petition before the Rent Controller, Guntur for eviction of the petitioner here in took the premises on lease to run a retail vegetable trade. He did vegetable business for sometime. Ultimately, he shifted to another place for doing vegetable business and gave the scheduled premises on sub-lease to the second respondent. The petitioner herein had no right to sub-lease the premises without the consent of the owners. It was also stated that the petitioner here in was supplying electric current to third persons named in the petition. The Rent Controller held that the petitioner had sub-leased the premises to the fourth respondent herein. He also held that the supply of electrical energy to the third persons mentioned in the petition was unauthorised and beyond the scope of his tenancy. He was therefore using the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased and also committing acts of waste which would impair the material value and utility of the building. For these reasons, he found that the petitioner is liable to be evicted from the said promises under Sec. 10 (2) (ii) (a) (b) 10 (2) iii (b) and 10 (2) (iii) (c) of the Act. The petitioner here in preferred an appeal to the subordinate Judge, Guntur. The appellate court diferred from the Rent Controller on the question of sub-lease. He held after considering the evidence in the case that the first respondent himself had been doing business in kerosene in premises though the licence had been obtained by the fourth respondent and therefore, had not sub-leased the premises to the fourth respondent. The learned Subordinate Judge however held that the petitioner was supplying current to one Naga Melleswar Rao and also to a bunk situated in front of the schedule property without the consent of the landlord. By this act, he has exposed the owners of the premises to the risk of being penalised by the electricity authorities besides disconnecting the supply to the petition schedule shop. Hence, the petitioner was liable to be evicted under Sec. 10 (2) (iii) of the Act. In the result, he dismissed the appeal. As against the said judgment, the tenant has preferred this revision petition.

The learned Subordinate Judge after considering the evidence in the case has come to the conclusion that the case of sub-lease has not been made put, I see no reason to interfere with the said finding of fact.

The learned Subordinate Judge however directed eviction on the ground that the petitioner had supplied electric current to two shops and thereby became liable to be evicted under sec. 10 (2) (iii) of the Act. I fail to see how sec. 10 (2) (iii) is applicable to such a case. Under Sec. 10 (2) (iii), a tenant is liable to be evicted if he has committed or caused to be committed such acts of waste as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building. The supply of electricity, though without the consent of the land-lord, though cannot in any sense be said to be an act of waste likely to impair the value or utility of the building. The lower appellate court was therefore clearly wrong in holding that the petitioner was liable to be evicted under sec. 10 (2) (iii) of the Act.

Sri. A. Hanumanth Rao, learned counsel for the respondents endeavoured to justify the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge in two ways. He submitted that the supply of electric current to third parties would constitute subletting of the building. He submitted that all the fixtures forming part of the building and if the tenant supplies electricity to third parties, it would amount to sub-letting of the building. I have no hesitation in rejecting this contention. The supply of electricity would amount to sale of electrical energy to third parties. It may be that such a sale is unauthorised and opposed to the statutory provision in regard to electricity or to the conditions under which the electrical installation was permitted. But I am unable to see how the supply of electricity would constitute sub-letting of the building within the meaning of the Sec. 10 (ii) (a) of the Act.

The learned counsel for the respondent then submitted that in any event, by such, conduct the tenant must be held to have used the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased and hence, it would come within sec. 10 (2) (ii) (b) of the Act.'' At the outset, it may be noticed that this is not one of the grounds on which eviction was sought, It is no doubt true that it is not necessary to mention the particular section or subsection of the Act on which the petitioner relies and if the facts necessary to constitute a ground of eviction are mentioned in the petition and have been duly proved, the court will be entitled to order eviction even though particular provisions of the Act is not quoted. But in this case, in order to establish that sec. 10 (2) (ii) (b) of the act is applicable, the petitioner has to prove firstly that the building was leased for a particular purpose. Secondly, that it was used for a purpose other than that for which it was let out. In this case, all that is stated in the petition is that the building was leased for the purpose of carrying vegetable vendor''s business. But there is no tangible material to hold that it was leased out only for that purpose. Secondly, by a mere sale of electrical energy, though unauthorised it cannot be said that the petitioner is using the building for a purpose other than for which it was leased to him. I am therefore unable agree that sec. 10(2) (ii) (b) is attracted. In the result, the revision petition is allowed, but in the circumstances, without costs.