Judgment

MOHAN, J.:- All these appeals can be dealt with under a common judgment since they arise out of one and the same order in all the Courts. The 1st respondent landlady, Smt. Kanta Bai Asawa and her mother Smt. Godavari Bai Rathi are the owners of mulgies bearing Municipal Nos. 3.2.840/6 and 3.2.840/7, situated at Veer Sawarkar Road, Kacheguda, Hyderabad. These two mulgies were let out to appellants tenants under separate lease-deeds (marked as P1 and P2 respectively in the trial Court) executed on 23-9-1978.Ex. P1 is in respect of mulgi bearing No. 3.2.840/6 and Ex. P2 is in respect of mulgi bearing No. 3.2.840/7. Alleging that the tenants had committed wilful default in payment of rent as well as the taxes due to the Municipal Corporation in respect of the demise premises, the landladies filed four eviction petitions bearing R. C. Nos. 291 / 84, 292/84, 1972/86 and 1973 / 86 on the file of the First Additional Rent Controller at Hyderabad. The tenants contended that they did not commit wilful default either with regard to payment of rent or municipal taxes.

2. All the petitions were clubbed together. Common evidence was adduced in R.C. No. 29 1/84. The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the tenants had committed willful default in payment of rent as well as the municipal taxes. Accordingly, all the four eviction petitions were allowed. The tenants were directed to vacate the premises within a period of two months.

3. Aggrieved by the order of eviction, appeals were preferred in R.A. Nos. 387/ 390/ 89 to the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The appellate Court held that there was no basis for the trial court to conclude that the tenants had committed wilful default. For these reasons, the appeals were allowed.

4. Thereupon ,revisions were preferred in Civil Revision Petition Nos. 2658, 2941, 3122 and 3129/1990 to the High Court. The learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the lower appellate court was right in reversing the order of eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent.

5. Concerning the municipal takes, he was of the view that it could not be said that the tenants had not committed any wilful default in payment of municipal taxes. It was found that the default had been committed by the tenant in respect of tax and the same amounts to wilful default in payment of rent which would entitle the landladies to evict the tenants. The revision petitions were allowed. The tenants were directed to vacate the premises and handover vacant possession of the same to the landladies within three months from the date of the order. Thus, the present civil appeals.

6. It is urged on behalf of the appellants that the High Court had gone wrong in its conclusion that the tenants had committed wilful default. The parties are governed by a contract which has been embodied in the rent deed dated 23-9-1978. That rent deed contains several clauses which are beneficial to the tenants. Ignoring those clauses, the High Court had come to an incorrect conclusion an both of question of law and facts. Under clause 3 of the agreement, the tenant had deposited with the landladies a sum of Rupees 10,000/-. That deposit was not to carry any interest. It could be adjusted at the termination of tenancy towards the rent, light bills and damages which may be found due. This deposit was to be returned to the tenants only at the time of tenants vacating the premises. Under Clause 5, it was stipulated that the non-payment of two months deposit as agreed will entitle the landladies to eject the tenants as wilful defaulter. The same is reiterated in Clause 14.

7. Under Clause 22, it had been agreed that when the tenants vacate the shop, they could remove the changes made by them and without permission of the landladies and restore to original condition at their cost. Under Clause 24, the details of re-construction through the landladies to be made at tenants cost were detailed out . As regards municipal ta