Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1180 (AP)

Kollipara Venkat Rao v. Moturi Lakshmi Sulochana

2001-10-05

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2001
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a civil revision petition (CRP) filed by the petitioner-tenant under Section 22 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). ( 2 ) THE petitioner is a tenant of part of the premises bearing D. No. 28/280 of machilipatnam. The 1st respondent filed rcc No. 36 of 1996 on the file of the Rent controller-cum- Principal Junior Civil Judge, machilipatnam, for eviction of the petitioner from the tenanted premises. The 1st respondent pleaded three grounds in the rcc, viz. , (1) wilful default (2) bona fide requirement, and (3) sub-lease of the portion of the tenanted premises by the petitioner in favour of one P. China nageswara Rao (2nd respondent herein ). It was the contention of the 1st respondent that the premises was leased to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 550/- per month with effect from 1-10-1993. The petitioner also filed RCC 15 of 1995 under Section 8 of the Act for deposit of the rents in the court alleging that the 1st respondent was refusing to receive the rents. The said RCC 15 of 1995 was dismissed on 24-6-1996. It was alleged in the RC filed by the 1st respondent that the petitioner fell in arrears of Rs. 8,678/- as on 31-7-1996, that the part of the schedule premises was sub-let in favour of the 2nd respondent, that the family of the 1 st respondent is residing in the 1 st floor of the premises, inasmuch as the husband of the 1st respondent who is residing in the first floor is suffering from cough and palpitation and she herself was suffering from rheumatic pains, they need the tenanted premises for their own occupation. Before the Rent Controller, the 1 st respondent was examined as PW1 and Ex. A1 was marked. The petitioner herein was examined as RW1 and Exs. Bl and B2 were marked. Through its order dated 8-6-1998, the Rent Controller dismissed the RCC recording the finding on all the three points against the 1st respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the 1 st respondent filed CMA No. 5 of 1998 before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, machilipatnam. The appellate Court, through its judgment dated 24-1-2000, allowed the appeal holding that the petitioner herein committed wilful default. Aggrieved by the same, the 1 st respondent filed CMA No. 5 of 1998 before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, machilipatnam. The appellate Court, through its judgment dated 24-1-2000, allowed the appeal holding that the petitioner herein committed wilful default. On the questions of bona fide requirement and sub-lease, the appellant Court decided the same against the 1st respondent. The petitioner filed the present CRP against the judgment in the cma. ( 3 ) SRI Gangadhar Chamarthy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding of the appellate Court on the question of default is mainly based on subsequent events, and, therefore, it cannot be sustained. He contends that if the rent is to be taken at Rs. 300/- per month, there is no default as such. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, Sri S. Ramachandra Prasad, the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent, submits that it is a matter of record that during the pendency of RCC No. 36 of 1996, the petitioner failed to pay the rents. In the CMA. , the 1st respondent filed an Interlocutory Application under Section 11 of the Act for delivery of possession on account of the failure of the petitioner in depositing the rents. That IA was dismissed only on the ground that the arrears related to the period during the pendency of the RCC. He further contended that even during the pendency of the CMA. , and the present CRP. , the petitioner did not pay the rents and on this ground alone the eviction is to be ordered and sustained, not to speak of the finding of fact by the appellate court that there was wilful default even before the filing of the RCC. ( 5 ) THE only question that arises for consideration in this CRP is whether there was wilful default on the part of the petitioner in paying the rent of the tenanted premises. Before the Rent Controller, the 1st respondent pleaded that the monthly rent is rs. 550/-, whereas the petitioner contended that the monthly rent in Rs. 300/- per month. However, the Rent Controller rejected the plea of the 1 st respondent and proceeded on the premise that the rent is only Rs. 300/- per month. Taking the monthly rent as only rs. 550/-, whereas the petitioner contended that the monthly rent in Rs. 300/- per month. However, the Rent Controller rejected the plea of the 1 st respondent and proceeded on the premise that the rent is only Rs. 300/- per month. Taking the monthly rent as only rs. 300/-, the appellate Court considered the various admitted and undisputed facts made from time to time and had arrived at a finding that the petitioner committed default in paying the rent even at Rs. 300/- per month. The appellate Court had extensively dealt with each item of payment in its judgment in paragraphs 14 and 15. These findings are not challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, I see no reason to disturb the same. ( 6 ) IT is on record that the petitioner himself filed RCC No. 15 of 1995 under section 8 of the Act seeking permission of the Court to deposit the rents in the Court. Obviously, on finding that there was no justification for the petitioner seeking to deposit the rents in the Court, the Rent controller dismissed the same and the said order became final. He did not choose to pay the rents regularly. ( 7 ) IT also needs to be noted that during the pendency of the RCC, the petitioner did not pay the rents. The 1 st respondent had filed an application under Section 11 in the cma for delivery of possession on account of the failure of the petitioner in depositing the rents. That was dismissed on technical ground that the arrears related to the period during the pendency of the RCC. In fact the 1st respondent filed a CRP in this Court against that order. However, since the CMA itself was allowed, the CRP became infructuous and accordingly it was dismissed. During the pendency of the CMA as well as the CRP. , the petitioner did not pay the rents. The assertion of the learned Counsel for the 1 st respondent in this regard was not disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner appears to have been reeling under the impression that the act enables him to enjoy the premises without paying any rents. , the petitioner did not pay the rents. The assertion of the learned Counsel for the 1 st respondent in this regard was not disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner appears to have been reeling under the impression that the act enables him to enjoy the premises without paying any rents. By his conduct, he not only deprived the 1st respondent of the rents for the premises, but also made the 1st respondent to incur expenditure for amenities, such as, water and payment of municipal tax, etc. It is an instance of gross misuse of the provisions of the Act, which is enacted to protect the genuine interest of the tenants. It is on account of such indifferent, recalcitrant and malevolent attitude exhibited by certain tenants that the very purpose of the Act is subverted and the owners of the premises are subjected to untold hardships and harassments. One unfortunate situation in the Act is that it does not ensure payment or recovery of rents and the same is frequently taken advantage of. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner pleads that the finding of the appellate Court is mostly on the basis of subsequent events and there is no justification to seek eviction. The question as to whether subsequent events can be taken into account, that too in the absence of any provision in the Act, ceased to be res integra long back. There is catena of decisions from the Hon ble Supreme Court as well as this Court on this aspect. The appellate Court has extensively referred to them. It is sufficient to refer to the judgment of the hon ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram, AIR 1992 SC 700 , wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court observed that wherever subsequent events of fact or law which have a material bearing on the entitlement of the parties to relief or on aspects which bear moulding of the relief occur, the Court is not precluded from taking a cautious cognizance of subsequent changes of fact and law to mould the relief. Reference to other decisions would only result in repetition of the proposition. The facts of the present case provide for one of the fittest circumstances for invoking the concept of subsequent events. Reference to other decisions would only result in repetition of the proposition. The facts of the present case provide for one of the fittest circumstances for invoking the concept of subsequent events. ( 9 ) ADMITTEDLY, the tenant did not pay the rents during the pendency of the RCC, cma, and the CRP. Even assuming there was any doubt as to the finding of the appellate Court on the question of wilful default, before filing of the CRP, the same is removed beyond trace of identity on account of the successive and successful defaults committed by the petitioner during the pendency of the proceedings before the rent Controller, appellate Court and in this court. Therefore, the order of the appellate court directing eviction of the petitioner cannot be found fault with. The CRP is accordingly dismissed. But, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( 10 ) THE petitioner is directed to vacate the tenanted premises and deliver possession of the same within three months from today.