Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1323 (AP)

Panduluru Rajeswari v. N. V. Madhusudana Gupta

2001-10-19

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2001
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision under Section 22 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act IV of 1960 (hereafter referred as the Act for brevity) is preferred against the order dated 18. 12. 1997 of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge-cum-Rent Control Appellate Tribunal, Tirupati in C. M. A. No. 4 of 1992. ( 2 ) THE landlady is the petitioner. She is the owner of the premises bearing Door No. 113, Theerthakatta street, Tirupati. She had let out part of the said premises identified as Door No. 11-D in favour of the respondent from 2. 11. 1981 onwards for non-residential purpose. Initially the rent was Rs. 150/- and from May 1985 onwards it has been enhanced to Rs. 250/ -. It was not in dispute that the respondent had deposited an amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards advance. ( 3 ) THE petitioner filed RCC No. 15 of 1990 in the Court of Principal District Munsif-cum-Rent Controller, Tirupati under Sections 10 (2x0 and 10 (3) (c) of the Act seeking eviction of the respondent on the grounds that a) the respondent committed wilful default in payment of rents and b) the premises are needed for additional accommodation of the petitioner. On behalf of the petitioner, PW-1 was examined and Ex. A-1 was marked. Whereas, on behalf of the respondent, RW-1 was examined and Exs. B-1 to B-5 were marked. The Rent Controller dismissed the RCC through the order dated 20. 10. 1999 holding that the petitioner failed to establish both the grounds pleaded by her. Then the petitioner filed appeal - C. M. A. No. 4 of 1992 - before the appellate Tribunal. The appellate Tribunal though recorded a finding that there was wilful default on the part of the respondent herein, refused the relief on the ground that there was an amount of Rs. 5,000/- in deposit with the petitioner and if that amount is adjusted, there will not be any default. The finding of the Rent Controller as to the bona fide requirement was also affirmed by the appellate Tribunal through its order dated 28. 10. 1992. Hence this revision. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner Sri Gangarami Reddy submits that the respondent stopped payment of rents from August 1988 onwards. The finding of the Rent Controller as to the bona fide requirement was also affirmed by the appellate Tribunal through its order dated 28. 10. 1992. Hence this revision. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner Sri Gangarami Reddy submits that the respondent stopped payment of rents from August 1988 onwards. The respondent filed RCC 25 of 1989 under Section 8 of the Act only in June 1989 and even after filing of RCC 25 of 1989 he failed to deposit the rents regularly into Court. It is his submission that these facts are sufficient to arrive at a finding that there was wilful default on the part of the respondent. ( 5 ) AS regards the additional requirement, he submits that the premises in which the petitioner together with her two unemployed sons are living and the premises under occupation of the respondent are part of the same building and inasmuch as the family needed an additional accommodation, their requirement was bona fide. ( 6 ) SRI Rajinikanth Jwala, learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand submits that as long as there was deposit of Rs. 5,000/-, the question of wilful default does not arise and that there was no evidence to establish the plea of the petitioner as regards the bona fide requirement. ( 7 ) IT is evident from the record that an amount of Rs. 5,000/- deposited by the respondent was admittedly lying with the petitioner. Even if the plea of the petitioner that the respondent stopped payment of rent from August 1988 onwards till the date of filing of the RCC by her i. e. , March 1990 is accepted, it is to be seen whether the respondent has committed wilful default. Admittedly, the respondent filed RCC 25 of 1989 under Section 8 of the Act seeking permission of the Rent Controller to deposit the rents with the Court. That petition was filed in June, 1989. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any default or for that matter wilfu! default from June 1989 onwards. Even assuming that the respondent did not pay the rents from August 1988 till May, 1989 i. e. , 10 months, which comes to Rs. 2,500/-, the amount in deposit is sufficient to take care of the same. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any default or for that matter wilfu! default from June 1989 onwards. Even assuming that the respondent did not pay the rents from August 1988 till May, 1989 i. e. , 10 months, which comes to Rs. 2,500/-, the amount in deposit is sufficient to take care of the same. ( 8 ) SRI Gangarami Reddy submits that even after filing of RCC 25 of 1989 the respondent did not deposit the rents regularly and the accumulated rents of four months, three months etc. were being deposited at staggered intervals. He wants this fact to be taken into account as subsequent event. It is however to be seen that, whether there was a default in payment of rents subsequent to the filing of RCC 25 of 1989, is a matter of evidence. The fact that still a substantial amount remains with the petitioner in the form of advance cannot be ignored. Unless the petitioner is able to plead and establish that even after taking into account the entire amount of deposit, there still exists a default, it is too difficult to arrive at a conclusion that there was a wilful default on the part of the petitioner. In my opinion, both the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority have dealt with the question in its proper perspective and with relevant provisions of law and precedents and as such the finding does not call for any interference. In Modern Hotel, Gudia" v. K. Radhakrishnaiah, AIR 1989 SC 1510 , the Supreme Court held that any amount deposited by the tenants is liable to be adjusted towards rent. ( 9 ) COMING to the question of additional requirement, it is to be seen that the plea of the petitioner was very vague and the evidence was very bleak. When the premises under occupation of the petitioner is residential in nature and the one let out to the respondent is non-residential in nature, the burden is cast upon the petitioner to establish that the residential accommodation needs to be expanded and the non-residential premises under the occupation of the tenant was fit to be included in the residential accommodation. Except the self-serving statement, there was no evidence in this regard. Except the self-serving statement, there was no evidence in this regard. The Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority found as a fact that the premises under occupation of the petitioner and the one under the occupation of the respondent are distinct and separate. Therefore, this contention also cannot be accepted. ( 10 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, I do not see any ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of th Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority and therefore dismiss the civil revision petition. No order as to costs.