THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Civil Revision Petition No. 3449 of 2009 Order: This revision is directed against the order dated 08.06.2009 passed in R.A. No.265 of 2007 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, confirming the eviction order dated 22.10.2007 passed in R.C. No.136 of 2004 by the IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Rent Controller for the sake of convenience. The petitioners claim to be the landlords of the petition schedule premises filed a petition in R.C. No.136 of 2004, under Section 10(2)(ii)(a) and (iii) of the Act. The Rent Controller allowed the said application by the order dated 22.10.2007 on three grounds. One is sub-letting, the other is cause of waste and third is cease to occupy. On appeal, the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court in RA No.265 of 2004, by order dated 08.06.2009, though dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent-tenant confirming the order of the Rent Controller on the ground of cease to occupy, but however, the other findings of the Rent Controller with regard to the allegation of sub-letting and cause of waste were not accepted by the appellate Court. Since the eviction was ordered the respondent-tenant is in revision before this Court. Learned counsel for the respondent-tenant submitted that the petitioners-landlords did not make any specific pleading in their petition under Section 10(2)(v) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’) that the respondent-tenant has secured alternative building or ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause and that since the word ‘four months’ has been specifically used in Clause (5) of sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act, the petitioners-landlords ought to have specifically pleaded and when there is a conflict between law and equity, law must prevail. The learned counsel for the petitioners-landlords submitted that the petitioners-landlords have specifically pleaded that the respondent-tenant kept the premises closed except opening the same very occasionally and that he was concentrating on some other business and even had removed the name board of his business and had sub-let the same to one Dr. M.V. Rama Chandra Rao from the month of November 2003 till February 2004 and that there was no electricity connection to the premises and therefore the said Doctor had vacated the premises. The only point that arises for consideration in this revision is whether the respondent-tenant has secured alternative building or ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause? The parties approach the Advocates for legal advice. Great responsibility lies on the advocates to gather all the facts and the documents from the parties and study the case before preparing pleadings. It is their responsibility to draft pleadings as per the directions given by their clients. Because of their legal expertise the parties approach the advocates. Of course, the parties need not aver the legal position in their pleadings or they need not refer to the sections or re-produce the verbatim of Sections or provisions in their pleadings. Whether pleadings fulfil the requirement as per the provisions of the relevant Act or Rule has to be verified by the Court. Then it becomes the responsibility of the Court to read the entire pleadings and to decide what was the intention of the parties and what they really intended to plead before the Court. In view of the same and in view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent-tenant that there is no specific averment in the petition that the respondent-tenant was not in continuous occupation of the premises for four months without reasonable cause, it is necessary to refer to the averments in the petition. In paras 3(c), (d) and (e) of the petition the petitioners- landlords have stated as follows. “3(c) The respondent is running other business and thus neglected to conduct any business in the petition schedule shops. For the reasons to develop other business, the respondent kept the premises closed except opening the same very occasionally. The respondent besides concentrating on other shops neglected to conduct any business in the petition schedule premises and however holding the same with an evil intention to sub-let the petition schedule shops. The respondent even removed his business name board. In fact, the respondent had sub-let one shutter to one medical practitioner by name Dr. M.V. Rama Chandra Rao in the month of November/December 2003 without the consent or permission of the petitioners. The said Doctor has run the clinic for some time till February 2004 as is evident from the photographs which are being filed along with the petition. Subsequently, he vacated the mulgi since the power was disconnected to the mulgies, due to non-payment of electricity charges by the respondent to the department. (d) The respondent occupied the petition schedule mulgies on rent which is exclusive of electricity payable by the respondent as per the consumption. Due to non-payment of the electricity charges, the same got accumulated and lead to the disconnection of the electricity supply. The arrears due and payable to the department is around Rs.7,140/- as on January/February 2004. (e) …………………The power supply is disconnected since the respondent neglected to pay the bills. Presently, there are huge arrears of Rs.7,140/- as on 24.02.2004. The nil consumption on monthly electricity bills clearly demonstrates that petitioner is not undertaking any business and thereby committing acts of waste, causing damage to the property thereby impairing the utility of the premises.” In para 4 of the petition the petitioners have stated as follows. “The cause of action for the petition arose when the petitioners caused notice dated 23.06.1999 and when the respondent besides discontinuing his business, sub-let a portion of petition schedule mulgies in the month of November/December 2004 and when the petitioners demanded the respondent to vacate the premises and also on all other dates as pleaded in the above paras.” Further in para 3(e) of the petition the petitioners have stated thus. “The petitioners have time and again demanded the respondent not to sub-let the mulgies and to vacate the premises and directed the respondent to vacate and handover the peaceful possession of the mulgies in his occupation vide legal notice dated 23.06.1999. Since they are not put to any use, the utility of the petition schedule property is getting damaged due to Bandicoots digging up the floor thereby affecting the foundation.” A reading of the above pleadings gives an impression that the respondent-tenant was not using the premises from 1999 to 2004, though the petitioners have not exactly mentioned the same words in their pleadings. There is nothing to refer to the other record in this case, but the documents filed by the petitioners- landlords and the admissions made by the respondent-tenant in his evidence makes it clear that there was no electricity connection to the premises from June 1998 to May 1999. Ex.A21 is the certified copy of the electricity demand notice pertaining to the period from April 1999 to September 1999. As per this bill dated 01.10.1999 the total billable units found for all these months only 170 units. The opening reading has been shown as 3510. Exs.A17 to A20 are the bills pertaining to the period June 1998 to June 1999. In all those documents the opening reading as well as current readings have been shown as 3510 only. The same is the opening reading shown in Ex.A21 the bill dated 01.10.1999 as well. The appellate Court observed that “that means from June 1998 to September 1999 the opening reading has been the same figure i.e., 3510. Even during the month of May 1999 the opening as well as current readings have been shown as 3510 as per Ex.A20. Even subsequently for the month of October 1999 and November 1999 the electricity consumption has been shown as ‘O’ units. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent- tenant is that the respondent-tenant was selling coconuts and provisions and even in the absence of electricity supply he could have run the business in the premises. But, unfortunately that is not the evidence of RW.1. The respondent-tenant, who was examined as RW.1, deposed that he has been running the grocery shop and also selling flowers, coconuts including gersey milk. It is also his case that there is refrigerator in the shop and he used to sell cool drinks in summer. When that is the case of RW.1 then by no stretch of imagination it can be said that he could have run the shop without electricity connection. For selling gersey milk and cool drinks one has to keep the same in the refrigerator and admittedly without electricity the refrigerator cannot work. So, a reading of the entire evidence gives an impression that the shop was practically closed for several months without doing any business. When the electricity bills were confronted to the respondent-tenant, he has simply denied the same with regard to some bills and with regard to some other bills he pleaded that he has no knowledge about the same. Of course, his case is that on verification the due amount of electricity bills were reduced from Rs.7140/- to Rs.3269/-. He has also admitted that he filed sales tax returns up to 1999, but subsequently he did not file any such returns. In view of the same, I am of the view that the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the respondent-tenant was not occupying the premises for a considerable period obviously for more than four months as required under Clause (5) of sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act is on fact proved. Accordingly, I do not see any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, no order as to costs. However, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent-tenant the respondent-tenant is permitted to vacate the premises by 30.04.2011 subject to payment of rents and dues, if any. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 07.02.2011 Nsr