THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3007 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of the Rent Control-Appellate Authority-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, in C.M.A. No.21 of 2007 dated 11.06.2010 whereby the appeal of the landlady was allowed, and the respondent-tenant was directed to deliver possession of the petition schedule property to the landlady within two months from the date of the order, failing which the landlady was held entitled to recover the same through process of law. In addition, the respondent-tenant was directed to pay costs of Rs.3077/-. The respondent herein is the petitioner in RCC. No.3 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller at Srikakulam. R.C.C. No.3 of 2005 was filed under Section 10 of the A.P. Building (Lease rent and eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the “Act”) for eviction of the petitioner herein for default in payment of rent, and for change in the use of the premises. The Rent Controller, by his order in RCC. No.3 of 2005 dated 25.09.2007, held that the tenant had not defaulted in payment of rent, and opening of an STD booth in a corner of the rented premises did not amount to change in use of the premises. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent-landlady carried the matter in appeal before the Appellate Authority in C.M.A. No.21 of 2007. The Appellate Authority, by his order dated 11.06.2010, allowed the appeal on both the grounds of willful default and change in use of the premises. The Appellate Authority held that, though the tenant had started depositing rent into the Court after the RCC was filed by obtaining a challan, she had failed to inform the landlady by putting her or her Counsel on notice regarding the rent being deposited regularly. The Appellate Authority held that, on a conjoint reading of Rule 5 with Rule 16 of the Rules, failure of the tenant to put the landlady on notice regarding deposit of rent before the Rent Controller amounted to willful default. The appellate authority held that the written consent of the landlady had not been obtained for change of use of the premises; the tenant had admitted that she had closed the medical shop, and was running an STD booth; this clearly showed that there was a change in use of the premises which was vacated without the written consent of the landlady; the written consent of the landlady was mandatory for change of use of the leased premises; and the tenant was not entitled to claim that there was oral permission or that the landlady was estopped by her conduct. The appellate authority held that there was a change of use of the premises and the finding of the Rent Controller, to the contrary, was erroneous. On both grounds regarding willful default in payment of rent, and of change of use of the premises, the Appellate Authority held in favour of the landlady and against the tenant. Before this Court, Sri P. Veera Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would contend that once it is accepted that the tenant had deposited rent each month in the treasury, and had filed the challans relating to such deposit before the Rent Controller, there was no obligation on her part to intimate the landlady regarding such deposit in as much as Rule 16 casts an obligation only on the Court to issue notices to the landlady regarding such deposit. With regards change in land use, learned Counsel would contend that mere opening of an STD booth in a corner of the premises, a major portion of which was being used as a medical shop, did not amount to change in use of the premises. On the other hand, Sri G. Vivekanand, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-landlady, would contend that non- intimation by the tenant, regarding deposit of the rent, to the landlady amounts to willful default. Learned Counsel would rely on the judgment of the Supreme Court in N.D. Thandani v. Arnavaz Rustom Printer[1] and of the Full bench of this Court in Mohammed Izhar Ali v. Smt. Olive Founseca[2] in this regard. On the question of change in use of the premises, Learned Counsel would submit that it is evident from the admission of the tenant, in his deposition before the Rent Controller, that the medical shop was closed and, in its place, the tenant was running an STD booth; it was not a case where a small portion of the premises was being used for locating the STD booth and, on the other hand, it was a case of closure of the medical shop, and running an STD booth thereat without permission of the landlady; and this amounted to change in use of the premises. It is wholly unnecessary for this Court to examine the contention with regards willful default or to the judgments referred to by the Learned Counsel for the landlady in this regard, as this revision is liable to be dismissed, and the order of the appellate authority upheld, solely on the ground that the tenant had changed the use of the premises in question. A copy of the depositions before the Rent Controller is placed before this Court. The landlady, in her chief-examination as P.W-1, stated that the respondent (tenant) had postponed payment of rent, and had locked the shops since January, 2005, and did not open it till date. The tenant, in her deposition as R.W-1, denied that she had closed the shops from January, 2005. She, however, added that the shop was closed in June, 2005 since the landlady had demanded enhancement of rent. She also admitted that she was running a telephone booth along with medical shop since 1997. It is evident therefrom that, while the petitioner-tenant was running both the medical shop and the STD booth since 1997; eversince June, 2005 the medical shop was closed. The appellate authority has recorded his finding that the respondent-tenant had admitted to have closed the medical business, and to be running an STD booth thereat; and this showed that there was a change in the use of the leased premises without the written consent of the landlady. The finding recorded by the appellate authority accords with the evidence on record, and does not necessitate interference in revision proceedings. On the ground of change in use alone, the order in C.M.A. No.21 of 2007 dated 11.06.2010, must be upheld. Since the respondent-tenant has been running an STD booth ever since 1997, I consider it appropriate to grant her reasonable time to vacate the premises. In case the petitioner submits an unconditional undertaking, within four weeks from today, before the Rent Controller, agreeing to vacate the premises within six months from today, the Rent Controller may not initiate coercive steps for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the premises in question. In case no such undertaking, as aforementioned, is filed before the Rent Controller within four weeks from today, it is open to the Rent Controller to proceed further, and have the petitioner- tenant evicted, from the premises in question, in accordance with law. Subject to the above, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date: 09.09.2010 Note: Issue copy in ten days. B/o MRKR [1] AIR 2004 SC 495 [2] AIR 2008 AP 196 (FB)