Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1672 (AP)

Shaik Abdul Khader (died) by LRs. v. Zohra

2001-12-20

P.S.NARAYANA

body2001
P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Bajrang Singh Thakur and Sri Venkatesh Deshpande, the learned Counsel representing the parties. ( 2 ) THE CRP is filed by the unsuccessful landlords in both the Courts below under Section 22 of A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (in short referred to as act hereinafter ). ( 3 ) THE revision petitioners-landlords filed RC No. 263/91 on the file of the learned IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad under Section 10 (2x0, 10 (2) (a), 10 (2) (iii) and (iv) 10 (3) (c) of the Act for eviction of the respondents-tenants from the eastern portion of the house bearing M. No 11-3-798 and 799 situate at Mallepally, consisting of four rooms viz. , one store room, one kitchen, one bathroom, latrine and open courtyard. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 9 in R. C. No. 263/91 were brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased first petitioner by virtue of the orders made by the lower Court in I. A. No. 604/91. The learned Rent Controller, after recording the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3, RW1 and also marking Exs. Al to A10 and Exs. B1 to B12, had ultimately arrived at the conclusion that the revision petitioners-landlords are not entitled to the relief of eviction of the respondents-tenants and had dismissed the RC by an order dated 19. 2. 1996 and aggrieved by the same, the landlords preferred RA No. 106/96 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and the learned appellate authority had dismissed the appeal by an order dated 24. 7. 2000 and aggrieved by the same, the present CRP is filed. ( 4 ) THE pleadings of the respective parties are as follows: "it was pleaded in the eviction that the petitioner No. 1 is the absolute owner and landlord of the entire house bearing M. Nos. 11-3-798 and 799 situate at Mallepally, Hyderabad. The husband of the respondent No. 1 took the eastern portion of the house bearing Nos. 11-3-798 and 799 consisting of four rooms, one store room, one kitchen, one bathroom one latrine with open courtyard on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/ - on 10. 4. 11-3-798 and 799 situate at Mallepally, Hyderabad. The husband of the respondent No. 1 took the eastern portion of the house bearing Nos. 11-3-798 and 799 consisting of four rooms, one store room, one kitchen, one bathroom one latrine with open courtyard on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/ - on 10. 4. 1972 from the petitioner No. l and executed a lease deed in favour of the petitioner No. l. As per the terms and conditions of the lease deed the rent has to be paid by the tenant in advance and the tenant has to pay electricity consumption charges and water charges. The respondents never paid rents regularly and they were chronic and habitual defaulters in payment of rents. The husband of the respondent No. 1 increased the rent from Rs. 150/- to Rs. 300/- with effect from 10. 4. 1980, but failed to pay rents increased by him, inspite of many repeated requests and demands of the petitioner. The husband of the respondent No. 1 died on 14. 12. 1982 and the respondents become tenants to the petitioner. The respondents are sending the rents by M. O. in very irregular times. The respondents failed to send rent for the month of April, 1991, as per the terms and conditions of the lease deed dated 10. 4. 1972, which is subsisting, except the quantum of rent. No fresh lease deed has been executed by the said Mohammed during his life time and after his death the respondents herein also failed to pay rents with effect from 10. 4. 1980 @ Rs. 150/- till April, 1991 amounting to Rs. 19,800/- for a period of 132 months inspite of repeated requests of the petitioners. The petitioner got issued legal notices on 26. 5. 1980; 20. 3. 1983 and on 20. 7. 1983 respectively. Though, the respondents sent replies on false and baseless allegations and failed to pay increased difference of the rent for the above said period, the respondents are not paying the electricity charges in time and they are in huge arrears of electricity consumption charges. Due to non-payment of rent and arrears of difference of increased rent and the electricity consumption charges clearly constitute the ground of wilful default. Due to non-payment of rent and arrears of difference of increased rent and the electricity consumption charges clearly constitute the ground of wilful default. The respondents are in the habit to lease out the rooms of the above said portions after the death of Mohammed and at present one person is occupying one room of the above said portion house on monthly rent of Rs. 150/-and acted against the terms and conditions of the lease deed and on this ground, the respondents are liable to be evicted from the above said portion of the house. In the open courtyard the Shabad stones were lying, but the respondents removed the same and the said stones were completely damaged and wasted. Thus, the respondents committed acts of waste and impaired materially the value and utility of the above said portion of the house in the month of March, 1991. The respondents illegally and unauthorisedly converted bathroom in the suit house into the sump by raising the walls inside the bathroom and by putting a slab over the said sump and is storing water in the said sump, due to which, the walls of the bathroom have become wet and dump and the walls of the bathroom, due to dumbness, are likely to fall within short period. If the walls of the bathroom fall, the entire bathroom will collapse and much damage will be caused to the adjacent portion of the suit house i. e. , kitchen and lavatory. The respondent has also illegally and unauthorisedly closed the verandah in the suit house by raising walls on sides, due to which, the value and utility of the suit house has been materially impaired. The respondents are quarrelsome nature. Whenever the petitioner or his sons wants to see the rented portion of the house, the respondents used to abuse the petitioner and his son and other family members in filthy language. When the petitioner and his son objected the respondents for not removing the Shabad stones from the courtyard portion of the house, in all the respondents started abusing. Apart from that the respondents are challenging the petitioner that no person on earth can evict them from the rented portion of the house for the reasons best known to them. When the petitioner and his son objected the respondents for not removing the Shabad stones from the courtyard portion of the house, in all the respondents started abusing. Apart from that the respondents are challenging the petitioner that no person on earth can evict them from the rented portion of the house for the reasons best known to them. The portion which is in use and occupation of the petitioner is insufficient as the petitioner is having his old mother, wife, three daughters, four sons and two sisters are living in the present portion that it is very miserable life that the petitioner s sons are sleeping on the pial out of the house in the street. Therefore, the petitioners require the said rented portion of the house for his own accommodation as additional accommodation for the petitioner s residential purpose. As such, the respondents are liable to be evicted from the rented portion of the house. Respondent No. 1 had filed the counter, which was adopted by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. "the respondent No. l submitted that the husband of the respondent No. 1, father of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, had obtained the suit schedule premises on monthly rent of Rs. 150/ -. It is denied that there was a lease deed dated 10. 4. 1972 in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 denies that as per the conditions of the lease deed, the rent in respect of the said premises has to be paid by the tenant in advance; that the tenant has to pay electricity consumption charges and water charges in time; that the tenant shall keep the tenanted premises in clean and neat condition; and that the tenant shall allow the landlord or his authorised agent to inspect the premises at all reasonable times; and that the tenant shall not sublet the same. The respondent No. 1 denies that the father of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the husband of the respondent No. 1 never paid rents regularly in time as per the lease deed; and that he was a chronic and wilful defaulter in payment of rents; and that the petitioner demanded many times; and that all times the husband of this respondent never paid rents in advance wantonly or intentionally and was a wilful defaulter in payment of rents. The respondent No. l denies that the husband of the respondent increased the monthly rent from Rs. 150/- to Rs. 300/- with effect from 10. 4. 1980 and failed to pay the increased rent inspite of repeated requests or demands of the petitioner. It is true that the husband of this respondent died on 14. 12. 1982 and the respondents were living in the schedule property by paying rents to the petitioners. It is denied that the respondents are chronic and wilful defaulter in payment of rents and the respondents are sending the rents by M. O. in very irregular times. The respondent denied that the respondents have failed to send the rents from April, 1991 and that the terms and conditions of lease deed dated 10. 4. 1972 were subsisting, except the quantum of rent; and that no fresh lease deed has been executed by the father of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, during his life time; that the respondents failed to pay increased rent from 10. 4. 1980 @ Rs. 150/-till April, 1991 amounting to Rs. 19,800/-for a period of 132 months inspite of repeated requests of the petitioner; that the petitioner got issued legal notice through Advocate Mohd. Ghulam Hussain, B. Dayakar Reddy and Sri Mohd. Tameezuddin on 26. 5. 1980, 20. 3. 1983 and 20. 7. 1983 respectively; that the respondent sent replies with false and baseless allegations to pay increased difference of the rent and to vacate the portion of the house; and that the respondents are not paying the electricity charges in time and they are in arrears of electricity consumption charges; and that electricity people came to cut the electricity of the respondents meter and that the respondents deny that the respondents are in arrears of any rent or electricity consumption charges constituing wilful default thereby they are liable to be evicted from the said portion on this ground. The respondents further denies that the respondents are in the habit of leasing out a room of a portion after the death of the husband of the respondent No. 1; that one person is occupying one room of the said portion on monthly rent of Rs. 150/ -. The respondent denies that the Shabad stones were being laid in the open courtyard or that the respondents removed the same or the stones were completely damaged and wasted. 150/ -. The respondent denies that the Shabad stones were being laid in the open courtyard or that the respondents removed the same or the stones were completely damaged and wasted. The respondents deny that the respondents are quarrelsome in nature or that whenever the petitioner or his sons went to see the portion, the respondents used to abuse the petitioner and his sons and other family members in filthy language; or that on 15. 3. 1991 the petitioner and his son objected the respondents for not removing the Shabad stones from the open courtyard; or that the respondents started abusing the petitioner and his family members. The respondents deny that the portion in the use and occupation of the petitioner is insufficient as the petitioner is having old mother, wife, three daughters, four sons and two sisters; or that the petitioner s sons are sleeping on the pial out of the house in the street. The respondents deny that the petitioner requires the rented portion for his own occupation as additional accommodation for residential purpose. After the death of the husband of the respondent No. 1, the petitioner made several attempts to dispossess the respondents and in fact the petitioner made an application to the Deputy Secretary to the Government for evicting the respondents from the suit property. The respondents were constrained to file a suit in OS No. 1598 of 1983 on the file of III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for a declaration and permanent injunction declaring the memorandum issued by the Government evicting the respondents herein from the suit premises as illegal. The said suit was clearly contended that the respondent husband occupied the suit premises even 14 years prior to issuing a reply to the Government dated 10. 11. 1982 and that there was some dispute between the landlord and tenants. The said suit was decreed after contest on 18-12-1983. The petitioner was fully aware regarding the developments made in the premises and was also attending Court regularly to assist the Government Pleader. It is submitted that at any stage of the said suit, the petitioner or the Government disputed the quantum of rent of Rs. 150/- per month and the petitioners filed the said application only to harass the respondents. It is submitted that at any stage of the said suit, the petitioner or the Government disputed the quantum of rent of Rs. 150/- per month and the petitioners filed the said application only to harass the respondents. The respondents further submit that the electricity meter in respect of the suit property is situated in the landlords portion bearing premises No. 11. 3. 798 and the landlord was tampering with the electricity in respect of the suit property. The respondents are paying the electricity charges, as per the slab, regularly, and on several occasions the petitioner used to suppress the demand notice of the Electricity Board because of which the respondents were authorised to pay the electricity bill with late fee for no fault of theirs. It is submitted that as on the date of filing of this case, there was no due regarding the electricity charges and the allegations of the petitioners that the respondents are in huge arrears of electricity charges are false. ( 5 ) ON the respective pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller had framed four points for consideration relating to wilful default, bona fide requirement by way of additional accommodation, subletting and acts of waste and had negatived all the grounds on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence and aggrieved by the same, as stated supra, RA No, 106/96 was filed and the appellate authority had framed the following points for consideration:1. Whether the respondents failed to pay the increased rent of Rs. 150/- per month from 10. 4. 1980 to April, 1991 and if so, the tenant is liable for eviction? 2. Whether the respondents has sublet one room in the suit premises without the consent of the owner to third party and if so, liable for eviction? 3. Whether the tenants has committed acts of waste and damaged to the suit property and if so, liable for eviction? 4. Whether the petitioners bona fidely requires the suit premises by way of additional accommodation and if so, liable for eviction?the appellate authority had discussed the points for consideration at paragraph Nos. 14 to 19 of its judgment and had ultimately dismissed the appeal and aggrieved by the same, the present CRP had been preferred by the unsuccessful landlords under Section 22 of the Act. 14 to 19 of its judgment and had ultimately dismissed the appeal and aggrieved by the same, the present CRP had been preferred by the unsuccessful landlords under Section 22 of the Act. ( 6 ) SRI Bajrang Singh Thakur, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners-landlords, had drawn my attention to the conditions stipulated in Ex. A1, the lease deed, dated 10. 4. 1972, and had contended that the respondents-tenants had acted clearly in violation of the terms and conditions of Ex. A1 and this aspect was not considered at all by the Courts below. The learned Counsel had drawn my attention to condition Nos. 3, 6, 12 and 17 and had contended that the very non-consideration of Ex. Al by the Courts below is a serious legal infirmity. The learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 and also the evidence of RW1 and Exs. A1 to A10 and Exs. B1 to B12 and had submitted that even the non-payment of electricity bills and electricity charges will constitute wilful default in the present case and the approach of the Courts below in this regard is unsustainable. The learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to Ex. A5, the entry in the electoral roll, and had pointed out that it clearly establishes the subletting. The learned Counsel also had submitted that on the aspect of bona fide requirement, by way of additional accommodation, the evidence of PW1 is clear and categorical. As far as the ground of acts of waste is concerned, the learned Counsel had pointed out that though several acts of waste, in fact, had been pleaded and PW1 had deposed relating to the same, which is supported by the evidence of PW3, the evidence had not been appreciated in proper perspective. Hence, even if concurrent findings had been recorded in the present set of facts and circumstances of the case, the revisional Court can definitely interfere with such findings recorded by both the Courts below. The learned Counsel also had placed strong reliance on Shanthi Tarachand v. C. S. Narasimha Rao, 2000 (4) ALD 578 , Hamida v. Md. Kahlil, 2001 (1) RCR 564 (SC), Dattaram Pangam v. Allan Eurico Vales, 2000 (2) RCR 398 (Bom.) (DB) and Leela Soni and others v. Rejesh Goyal and others, (2001) 7 SCC 494 . The learned Counsel also had placed strong reliance on Shanthi Tarachand v. C. S. Narasimha Rao, 2000 (4) ALD 578 , Hamida v. Md. Kahlil, 2001 (1) RCR 564 (SC), Dattaram Pangam v. Allan Eurico Vales, 2000 (2) RCR 398 (Bom.) (DB) and Leela Soni and others v. Rejesh Goyal and others, (2001) 7 SCC 494 . ( 7 ) SRI Venkatesh Deshpande, the learned Counsel representing the respondents-tenants had contended that the concurrent findings had been recorded by both the Courts below, which are findings of fact and the powers of the revisional Court under Section 22 of the Act are limited and this is not a case of such a nature of total non-appreciation of evidence or any perverse findings had been recorded and hence with such concurrent findings, this revisional Court need not interfere. The learned Counsel had placed strong reliance on N. Ananda Rao v. P. Naga Anjeswara Rao, 1997 (3) ALD 732, R. B. Babiammal v. W. S. Savithri, 1997 (2) ALD 784 and also Shanthi Tarachand s case (supra ). The learned Counsel also had contended that the pleading relating to the non-payment of electricity bills is very vague. The expression rent does not include electricity charges and even otherwise, the tenants had paid even all electricity charges and as far as rent is concerned, the tenants are not due any rent at all. The learned Counsel further contended that on the aspect of bona fide requirement by way of additional accommodation, except the interested evidence of PW1, there is no other evidence available on record and further, the question of hardship was not pleaded and hence, the Courts below are justified in negativing this ground. The learned Counsel had placed strong reliance on Gurbachan Singh v. Shivalak Rubber Industries, AIR 1996 SC3057, S. Mohammed Iqubal v. M. Padmanabhan, AIR 2000 Mad. 15 , B. Kandasamy Reddiar v. O. Gomathi Animal, AIR 1998 SC 3235 and Davis v. Sebastian, AIR 1999 SC 3223 . The learned Counsel had further submitted that as far as the acts of waste is concerned, the pleadings are very vague and also the evidence of PW1 and PW3 on this aspect is highly insufficient. So as to establish the same, reliance was also placed on Sana. Optics v. Shyam Sunderbhargava, 1997 (1) ALD 628 , A. Govind Reddy v. V. Bangaru Chetty, 2001 (2) An. So as to establish the same, reliance was also placed on Sana. Optics v. Shyam Sunderbhargava, 1997 (1) ALD 628 , A. Govind Reddy v. V. Bangaru Chetty, 2001 (2) An. WR 189 and Veera Swamy v. Dr. D. N. Domale, 2000 (6) ALD 41 . The learned Counsel while making a submission relating to the non-consideration of Ex. A1 had drawn my attention that Ex. Al was marked on the condition of payment of stamp duty and penalty and since the same was not paid, the Courts below had not taken into consideration the validity or otherwise of Ex. A1. ( 8 ) HEARD both the Counsel at length and also perused the material available on record. ( 9 ) THE first ground is one of wilful default. There is no controversy as far as the jural relationship of landlords and tenants is concerned and one Shaik Abdul Khadar was the original owner of the premises, in question, and originally, the husband of the first respondent and father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had taken the eastern portion of the premises on rent of Rs. 150/- per month in the year 1972. No doubt, as far as Ex. Al is concerned, it was denied by the respondents-tenants. The husband of the first respondent died on 14. 12. 1982 and thereafter, the respondents had continued as tenants in the premises. The stand taken by the landlords is that the husband of the first respondent agreed to enhance the rent from Rs. 150/- to Rs. 300/- from April, 1980 and had failed to pay the enhanced rent from April, 1980 to April, 1991 and thus, committed wilful default in payment of rent. Further, the stand taken by the revision petitioners-landlords is that the respondents-tenants failed to pay the electricity charges and thus, they are liable for eviction even on that ground also. The tenancy commenced in the year 1972. In fact, the seventh petitioner was examined as PW1 who had deposed that the husband of the first respondent agreed to pay the enhanced rent from 10. 4. 1980 at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month, but no payment was made. But, however, though the husband of the first respondent was alive and agreed to pay the enhanced rent within a period of two years of the alleged enhancement, the landlord had not issued any notice relating to the enhancement. 4. 1980 at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month, but no payment was made. But, however, though the husband of the first respondent was alive and agreed to pay the enhanced rent within a period of two years of the alleged enhancement, the landlord had not issued any notice relating to the enhancement. The parties are not at dispute relating to the regular payment of rent of Rs. 150/- per month. PW1 further deposed that the rent at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month was never paid at any point of time. The tenants had taken a specific stand relating to the alleged enhancement of rent and had specifically denied the same. Exs. B11 and B12 are the rent receipts sent by money order for the alleged default period and that there was no protest on the part of the landlords. On appreciation of the evidence on record, both the Courts below had recorded a finding on the aspect of payment of rents. However, what is seriously contended is that the default relating to the payment of arrears of electricity charges, the stand taken by the respondents in the revision is that the non-payment of electricity charges may not be of much consequence since these charges cannot fall under the expression rant . No doubt, on the ground of default relating to the payment of electricity charges, there was insufficient evidence and PW1 alone deposed on the aspect and hence this ground was also negatived by the Courts below. In this context, strong reliance was placed on Condition No. 3 of Ex. Al, which reads as follows: "in addition to the agreed rent, the tenant shall be liable to bear electricity and water supply charges and the tenant shall pay the said necessary charges in time to the department concerned. Non-payment of the aforesaid charges in time shall be deemed to be non-payment of rent. " the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners had placed strong reliance on this condition and had contended that the Courts below did not consider this crucial aspect. On the aspect of non-consideration of Ex. A1, the learned Counsel for the respondents had taken a stand that the Courts below had not considered Ex. A1 for the reason that the stamp duty and penalty payable on Ex. On the aspect of non-consideration of Ex. A1, the learned Counsel for the respondents had taken a stand that the Courts below had not considered Ex. A1 for the reason that the stamp duty and penalty payable on Ex. A1, as directed by the Court, had not been complied with and hence, the Courts below are justified in not considering Ex. A1. In the deposition of the seventh petitioner- PW1, in the chief-examination it was recorded "mohammed died in 1982. Thereafter, R1 to R3 had become tenants in the suit premises. Original lease deed was filed in Court. Ex. A1 is the original lease deed, dated 10. 4. 1972 (marked subject to payment of stamp duty and penalty)". It is pertinent to note that when a document is marked even if subject to objection of a particular condition, the Courts are expected to discuss about the same. It is, no doubt, true that a serious attempt is made by the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners to convince this revisional Court that no stamp duty or penalty can be levied at all and had taken me through the nature of document, the conditions and recitals in the said document. However, the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, during the course of recording of evidence of PW1 stands and hence, in the light of the said order, the Courts are expected to decide the validity or otherwise of Ex. Al. Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, dealing with admission of instruments which were not to be questioned says, "where an instrument has been admitted in evidence, such admission shall not be called in question". Section 61 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 deals with "revision of certain decisions of Courts regarding the sufficiency of stamps". Hence, the total non-consideration of the validity or otherwise of Ex. Al by the Courts below is definitely a legal infirmity. ( 10 ) AS far as the aspect of subletting is concerned, strong reliance was placed on Ex. A5. But, however, at paragraph No. 16 in its judgment, the appellate authority had discussed Ex. B1, Ex. A5 and also the oral evidence of PW1 and had negatived this ground. Again in Ex. A1, condition No. 12 says that the tenant shall not sublet the said house or any portion thereof to anyone else. A5. But, however, at paragraph No. 16 in its judgment, the appellate authority had discussed Ex. B1, Ex. A5 and also the oral evidence of PW1 and had negatived this ground. Again in Ex. A1, condition No. 12 says that the tenant shall not sublet the said house or any portion thereof to anyone else. It is, no doubt, true that the ingredients of the ground of subletting had not been established. ( 11 ) COMING to the next aspect of acts of waste, the evidence of PW1 is that the respondents had removed Shabad stones flooring and they have converted bathroom into a sump for storing water and by this, there are chances of breaking of the walls due to storage of water and they have also caused damage to the adjacent latrine room and also store room and these damages had taken place in November, 1994. PW1 also deposed that they have also closed the verandah by raising walls on two sides and thereby the utility of the verandah had been impaired. No doubt, the stand taken by the respondents in this regard is one of total denial. The appellate authority had observed that there are no details relating to the acts of waste in the pleadings and the appellate authority also observed that the evidence of PW1 is not supported by any other evidence in this regard. In the pleadings, in fact, it was pleaded as follows:"in the open courtyard, the Shabad stones were lying, but the respondents removed the same and the said stones were completely damaged and wasted. Thus, the respondents committed acts of waste and to impaired materially the value and utility of the above said portion of the house in the month of March, 1991. The respondent illegally and unauthorisedly converted bathroom in the suit house into the sump by raising the walls inside the bathroom and by putting a slab over the said sump and is storing water in the said sump, due to which the walls of the bathroom have become wet and dump and the walls of the bathroom due to dumpness are likely to fall within short period. If the walls of the bathroom fall the entire bathroom will collapse and much damage will be caused to the adjacent portion of the suit house i. e. , kitchen and lavatory. If the walls of the bathroom fall the entire bathroom will collapse and much damage will be caused to the adjacent portion of the suit house i. e. , kitchen and lavatory. The respondent has also illegally and unauthorisedly closed the verandah in the suit house by raising walls on sides due to which the values and utility of the suit house has been materially impaired. " ( 12 ) APART from the above pleading, in addition to the evidence of PW1, the evidence of PW3 is also available, who had spoken to these aspects in the chief-examination. PW3 deposed that on 20. 11. 1994 he had gone to the house of petitioner No. 6, who is a doctor, for his daughter s treatment and at that time, PW1 and R2 were arguing with each other and PW1 wanted to inspect the suit property and R2 permitted him to do so with difficulty and then he had accompanied him at his request. PW3 also deposed that Shabad stones on the floors of the house were found broken, verandah was converted into a room by raising walls, water sump was constructed on the bathroom and water was stored in it, walls of the bathroom got damaged and plastering of walls fell down. PW3 also stated that one gentleman came out from the petition schedule premises, but he was not aware as to who that gentleman is. No doubt, it was suggested that PW3 is an interested witness and that he was speaking falsehood. Again, it was pointed out that in Ex. A1 condition No. 6 specifically says that the tenant shall not be entitled to effect any repairs, additions or alterations in the said house and in case of necessity of any repairs, the tenant shall inform the landlord in writing and in any way, the tenant will not ask the landlord to effect any addition or alteration in the said house to suit his personal requirement. In this context, the condition in Ex. Al again becomes relevant for consideration. In Shanthi Tarachand s case (supra) it was held that the relief of eviction on the ground of acts of waste and material alteration, tenant cannot plead oral consent in view of the specific terms in the lease agreement to the contra. In this context, the condition in Ex. Al again becomes relevant for consideration. In Shanthi Tarachand s case (supra) it was held that the relief of eviction on the ground of acts of waste and material alteration, tenant cannot plead oral consent in view of the specific terms in the lease agreement to the contra. ( 13 ) IN Veera Swamy s case (supra) it was held that lowering of water pipe by the tenant to obtain increase of pressure of water in the premises in view of several other tenants using the water from the same source in the premises does not constitute an act of waste in the absence of any evidence as to how it has impaired the value or utility of the building. In Gurbachan Singh s case (supra) while dealing with the alleged additions and alterations in premises by tenant under East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (3 of 1949) it was observed that involving material impairment of premises, affecting fitness of premises for use for desirable practical purposes and intrinsic worth from point of view of landlord, the tenant is liable to be evicted. In T. S. Devakaranamma v. State of A. P. , 2000 (2) An. WR 1, the aspect of acts of waste had been well discussed. In Sana Optic s case (supra) it was held that mere change or addition in the demised premises does not constitute acts of waste, unless the value or utility of the premises is impaired. Whether in the light of the evidence of PW1 and PW3 and also the pleadings in the eviction petition coupled with the condition in Ex. A1, the ground of acts of waste should have been considered by the appellate authority. It is, no doubt, true that as far as the aspect of nuisance is concerned, even in the evidence of PW1 no details are available. As far as the ground of bona fide personal occupation by way of additional accommodation is concerned, several contentions had been elaborately advanced by both the Counsel. It is, no doubt, true that a mere desire on the part of the landlord is not sufficient and there must be an element of need and the landlord must show that he requires the disputed premises as additional accommodation bona fidely. It is, no doubt, true that a mere desire on the part of the landlord is not sufficient and there must be an element of need and the landlord must show that he requires the disputed premises as additional accommodation bona fidely. In S. Mohammed Iqubal s case (supra) while dealing with the aspect of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 it was held that where there was no pleading relating to hardship undergone by landlord or advantage that he is going to have in evicting the tenant, the requirement of proviso to Section 10 (3) (c) had not been satisfied and hence, eviction of tenant cannot be ordered. Strong reliance was also placed on the question of additional accommodation and hardship on B. Kandasamy Reddiar s case (supra) and also on Davis s case (supra ). Apart from the evidence of PW1, the evidence of PW2 also is available relating to the proof of Ex. A1. In fact, condition No. 17 of Ex. A1 specifies that on account of breach of any condition, the tenant will be liable for eviction. No doubt, reliance was placed on Dattaram Pangam s case (supra), Hamida s case (supra) and also on Leela Soni s case (supra ). The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners had taken me through the judgment in Hamida s case (supra) wherein the bona fide requirement of the landlord under Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1982 was considered and the landlord having nine grown up children including a married couple and landlord having three rooms only, the difficulty for landlord to maintain secrecy and decency as expected from middle class family had been taken into consideration and the need of landlord was held to be bona fide. No doubt, the evidence of PW1 alone is, available and the Counsel representing the respondents had commented that there is no effective cross-examination of RW1 also in relation to several of these aspects. Even, if a document is marked subject to objection relating to the payment of stamp duty and penalty, Courts are expected to record reasons while deciding the matter since Ex. Al was already brought on record. Even, if a document is marked subject to objection relating to the payment of stamp duty and penalty, Courts are expected to record reasons while deciding the matter since Ex. Al was already brought on record. ( 14 ) NO doubt, it was seriously contended placing reliance on N. Ananda Rao s case (supra), R. B. Babiammal s case (supra) and Shanthi Tarachand s case (supra) that when concurrent findings had been recorded by both the Courts below, the revisional Court normally should not interfere with such concurrent findings under Section 22 of the Act. There cannot be any doubt about this proposition at all. But, here is a case, where Ex. A1 was not considered at all even if Ex. Al has to be rejected, reasons have to be recorded and reasons explained by the Counsel which are out of record since absolutely there is no discussion in the impugned order, cannot be seriously considered at the revisional stage. Apart from Ex. A1, the evidence of PW2 is also throws some light about Ex. Al and the evidence of PW3 may be relevant in deciding the acts of waste. Since, the appellate authority had not appreciated the matter after taking all the aspects into consideration, which I had discussed in detail supra and in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the appellate authority to give opportunity to both the parties to substantiate their respective contentions and also permit both the parties to let in further evidence, if any, if they choose to adduce to substantiate their respective contentions and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Since the matter is sufficiently an old one, the appellate authority is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. The CRP is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.