S. R. K. PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) THE tenant has preferred this revision petition against the order of eviction passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small causes court, Hyderabad in R. A. No. 149 of 1998. The jural relationship between the landlord and tenant is not in dispute. The landlord has contended that there was wilful default in payment of rents regarding the premises durina Auaust 1995 to November 1995 and the shop was required for his bona fide requirement to run business by his sons. The same is opposed by the tenant alleging that he has tendered the rents by way of demand draft as well as money order and he has not committed any default. The tenant has also resisted eviction that there was no bona fide requirement for the landlord to seek eviction. The IV Additional Rent controller gave a finding that there was wilful default in payment of rents and there was no bona fide requirement for the landlord to claim the premises for his personal use and ordered eviction in R. C. No. 787 of 1995. Thereupon, the tenant preferred an appeal in r. A. No. 149 of 1998. The learned Additional chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, hyderabad, confirmed the finding of the trial court and dismissed the appeal, Aggrieved by the same, this revision has been preferred by the tenant.

( 2 ) IT is mainly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that there is no wilful default in this case since he has tendered the rents by sending demand draft and also sent the amount by money order, which has been refused. It is further contended that the findings arrived at are not based on facts.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondent, who is landlord, contends that concurrent findings of fact have been given and there is no need to interfere with the eviction orders passed. He has placed reliance on the decision reported in t. S. Prakash v. Xavier Emmanuel wherein it is stated at para 10 as under:"both the Courts below have concurrently held that the petitioner committed wilful default in payment of rents for three months, viz. , July 1987 to September 1987 and also that the landlord bona fide requires the petition schedule premises for personal occupation. The findings recorded by the Courts below are findings of fact, reached on a careful appreciation of the entire material evidence available on record and those findings of fact cannot be interfered with by this Court in this revision petition. "

( 4 ) NO doubt, this Court normally will not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the courts unless they are shown to be perverse and not based on the material placed before the courts. The short point that arises for consideration is whether the tenant tendered the rents, which has been refused by the landlord and seeks for eviction. The Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the expression wilful default in the decision reported in S. Sundaram v. V. R. Pattabhiramar at para 25 as under:"thus, a consensus of the meaning of the words wilful default appears to indicate that default in order to be wilful must be intentional, deliberate, calculated and conscious, with full knowledge of legal consequences flowing therefrom. Taking for instance a case where a tenant commits default after default despite oral demands or reminders and fails to pay the rent without any just or lawful cause, it cannot be said that he is not guilty of wilful default because such a course of conduct manifestly amounts to wilful default as contemplated either by the act or by other Acts referred to above. "it is stated in Uligappa v. S. Mohan Rao that the landlord s right to get possession arises not on the determination of tenancy but arises only when he makes out any one of the grounds under Section 10 (2) and (3) of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and eviction) Control Act. It is also observed that in other words the contractual tenancy because of the enactment becomes statutory. Suffice it to say, the stipu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document