Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 484 (AP)

J. Narahari Chari v. B. R. Jain

2004-04-15

DALAVA SUBRAHMANYAM

body2004
DALAVA SUBRAHMANYAM, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 6-3-2002 in R. A. No. 13 of 1998 on the file of additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes court, Hyderabad dismissing the appeal and confirming the orders dated 31-10-1994 passed in R. C. No. 533 of 1994 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad ordering eviction of the tenant. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case read as follows: respondents herein are the landlords, who filed R. C. No. 533 of 1994 under Section 10 (2) (i) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act 1960, for eviction of the respondent/tenant from the demised premises on the ground of wilful default. Landlords contended that the respondent/tenant executed a lease deed dated 2-6-1984 for 11 months and he was continuing in the said premises subsequently also. The respondent/tenant paid the rents up to April 1994 and thereafter committed default in payment of rents from May 1994 to August 1994 and also failed to pay the electricity consumption charges to the Department and thereby liable for eviction. ( 3 ) THE tenant denied the allegations and contended that the landlords have been receiving the rents at irregular intervals. He further contended that the landlords used to collect the rents at their convenience. He paid an amount of rs. 720/- by Money Order and the same was received before first appearance in r. C. Further, the tenant paid an amount of rs. 25,000/- to the petitioner on 31-5-1984 towards security deposit and suppressing the said fact, the landlords filed the petition for eviction. ( 4 ) LEARNED Rent Controller framed point for consideration and gave a finding that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rents and thereby, ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant preferred an appeal before the Appellate authority and the Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal confirming the order of eviction. Challenging the same, he filed mis revision petition contending that the Rent controller as well as Appellate Authority committed error in coming to the conclusion that the revision petitioner committed wilful default in payment of rents. Learned Rent Controller failed to appreciate the admissions made by p. W. 1 regarding irregular receipt of rents. Further, the Rent Controller ignored the evidence of R. Ws. 2 and 3 for payment of advance of Rs. Learned Rent Controller failed to appreciate the admissions made by p. W. 1 regarding irregular receipt of rents. Further, the Rent Controller ignored the evidence of R. Ws. 2 and 3 for payment of advance of Rs. 25,000/ -. The Rent Controller and Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that the entire rents were paid even before the first date of appearance before the Rent controller. ( 5 ) NOW the point for consideration is whether the Rent Controller and the appellate Authority committed error in coming to the conclusion that the revision petitioner/tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent and if so, whether the revision petition is liable to be allowed. ? ( 6 ) RESPONDENTS/landlords filed R. C. No. 533 of 1994 on the file of the Rent controller, Hyderabad on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents from may 1994 to August 1994. On behalf of the petitioners, Vivek Jain was examined as P. W. 1. The evidence of P. W. 1 would reveal that the petitioners engaged Jameel ahmed to collect the rents. Jameel Ahmed was present in the Court when P. W. 1 was examined and it was suggested to P. W. 1 that the said Jameel Ahmed used to collect the rents at irregular intervals. It was also admitted by P. W. I that Jameel ahmed used to collect the rents from the tenants and thereafter, he used to give receipts with the signature of the first petitioner. Ex. A1 is the printed receipt book. In Ex. A1, the receipt dated 2-2-1994 shows the rent for three months from december 1993 to February 1994, and the receipt dated 7-6-1996 shows the rent for 2 months (April 1993 and May 1993) and another receipt dated 3-12-1992 showing the payment of rents for the months of october 1992 and November 1992. These receipts, which were marked in Ex. A1, would reveal that the rents were accepted at irregular intervals. It is also observed that in all the receipts, there is an endorsement "under protest" with rubber stamp. It is also admitted by P. W. 1 that prior to the issue of legal notice, the entire amount was remitted through Money Order and it was prior to the first date of appearance before the Rent Controller. In fact, the lease deed was also marked as Ex. A2 for collateral purpose. Though R. Ws. It is also admitted by P. W. 1 that prior to the issue of legal notice, the entire amount was remitted through Money Order and it was prior to the first date of appearance before the Rent Controller. In fact, the lease deed was also marked as Ex. A2 for collateral purpose. Though R. Ws. 2 and 3 deposed that they were present at the time when rs. 25,000/- was paid to the first petitioner, no receipt was produced for the said payment. It is brought to my notice that the petitioners did not file any rejoinder denying the said payment. However, the payment of Rs. 25,000/- is not relevant for the purpose of adjudicating whether there was wilful default in payment of rents in this case or not. Even by the date of first appearance, the revision petitioner remitted the entire rent and there were no arrears as on that date. Learned Rent controller and the Appellate Authority committed error in coming to the conclusion that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rents from May, 1994 to august, 1994 and on that ground the eviction was ordered. The Rent Controller and the appellate Authority failed to consider the evidence of P. W. 1 and R. Ws. 1 to 3 and erred in coming to the conclusion that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rents from May, 1994 to August, 1994, therefore, the order and judgment are liable to be set aside by allowing the revision. ( 7 ) IN the result, the revision is allowed and the Judgment and Decree in R. A. No. 13 of 1998 on the file of Additional Chief judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the appeal and the order dated 31-10-1994 in R. C. No. 533 of 1994 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, hyderabad are set aside.