Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.B.SINHA
J.Pushpalatha Devi (died) per L.Rs. - Appellant
Versus
Shyam Sundar - Respondent
Decided On : 06-29-01
Held : A Rent Controller, having regard to his limited jurisdiction is bound to consider the cases of the respective parties within four corners of Section 10 of the Act. In terms of Clause (i) of sub-section (2) of section 10 of the Act, a tenant is bound to pay or tender rent due from him within 15 days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord or, in absence thereof, by the last date of month following that month, for which the rent is payable. A tenant, who fails to establish that he has paid or tendered rent within the time stipulated aforementioned, would be a defaulter. As the proviso appended to subsection (2) of Section 10, is beneficent to the tenant, the doctrine of wilful default to some extent has been introduced to allow him to deposit the amount only in the event he is satisfied that the tenant is not a wilful defaulter. Such satisfaction must base on objective criteria. A default occurs at the expiry of each month subsequent to the last date of the month next following that for which the rent is payable. It was, therefore, for the tenant to show that he had no other option but to deposit the rent despite his attempt to pay or tender the monthly rent payable to the landlord.
The learned Court of appeal below, in the considered opinion of this Court, has evolved a new doctrine inasmuch as it has proceeded to hold that the wilful default must be intentional or deliberate. The proviso to Section 10 on the other hand provides that the satisfaction of the Court must be reached to the effect that the default was not intentional or deliberate.
The respondent could not show any reasonable ground, far less a reasonable or cogent ground, as to why he could not tender rent from January 1987 to August 1987. It is admitted that the rent had not been deposited from January 1987 to august 1987 nor any step in that regard had been taken by the tenant-respondents.
The right of a tenant to deposit the rent is vested in Section 9 of the Act. Such deposit can be made inter alia in the event the requirements of Section 8 are satisfied. Refusal to accept rent when tendered by the landlord inter alia would entitle the tenant to file an application for deposit of rent under the Act.
Sub-section (3) of Section 8 would be attracted only when the rent is to be deposited in a specified Bank. A notice by the landlord requiring him to specify a bank so as to enable the tenant to deposit the rent would arise only when the landlord refuses to accept. The tenant was therefore primarily liable to prove before the Court that circumstances existed so as to enable him to invoke the provisions of Sections 8 and 9 of the Act. No such evidence had been brought on records, at least in relation to non-payment of rent from January 1987 to August 1987.
A wilful defaulter, under the statute, does not get any exemption from suffering a decree for eviction only because wisdom had dawn on him at a later stage as each month s default would give rise to a cause of action for initiating proceedings for eviction under the said Act. In the instant case, even the tenant did not make any attempt to show that he had deposited the rent before the Rent Controller. Only some receipts have been filed before the Court of appeal below at the first instance. In the aforementioned situation, the learned Court of appeal below was under a legal obligation to see whether the requirements as embodied in the Rent Control Act have been fulfilled or not. But, it failed to discharge the said obligation vested in it.
( 1 ) ALL these revision petitions being interrelated were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
( 2 ) LANDLADY is the petitioner in all these revision petitions.
( 3 ) THE brief facts leading to the filing of these petitions may be stated thus: the petitioner is the owner of the premises bearing Municipal No. 6-3-853 situated at Ameerpet, Hyderabad. She had leased four mulgies of the said premises to one Sri Thakur V. Hari Prasad on a monthly rent of Rs. 800. 00, which was enhanced to rs. 1,000/- per month payable in advance every month on or before 5th day. It has been alleged that he stopped paying rent from January, 1987 onwards and committed wilful default in payment of rents for the period from January, 1987 to August, 1987. She further alleged that he had also sublet mulgi No. 3 to one Sri Sharma who had been running Glassware business since october, 1986 and the fourth mulgi to one shri Shyam Sundar who had been running kirana business, without her consent. She also raised the grounds that the premises were being used for the purpose other than for which they were leased, that both the tenant and the sub-tenants have committed acts of waste by making alterations to the mulgies thereby impairing the value and utility of the premises, that the tenant and the sub-tenants have their own alternative residential and non-residential premises in hyderabad and Secunderabad and that she requires the premises for bona fide requirement of commencing tiles business.
( 4 ) ON the above facts, the petitioner herein filed three separate Rent Cases under sections 10 (2) (i), (ii) (a) (b), (iii), (iv) and 3 (a) (iii) of A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and eviction) Control Act, 1960 for eviction of the tenant and the alleged sub-tenants. R. C. No. 1268 of 1987 was filed against the tenant and the alleged sub-tenant Sri Sharma, R. C. No. 1269 of 1987 was filed against the tenant and R. C. No. 1270 of 1987 was filed against the tenant and the alleged sub-tenant sri Shyam Sunder.
( 5 ) FOR convenience sake, the parties will be referred to by their status in the R. Cs.
( 6 ) IN all the revision petitions on behalf of the petitioner P. W. I was examined and on behalf of the respondents R. Ws. l and 2 were examined.
( 7 ) IN R. C. No. 1268 of 1987 Ex. P-1 was marked on behalf of the petitioner and in r. C. No. 1270 of 1987 Exs. P-1 to P-5 were marked on behalf of the petitioner as documentary evidence and no documents were filed on behalf of the respondents.
( 8 ) THE learned Rent Controller in R. C. Nos. 1268 and 1269 of 1987 found that the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent and on that ground the petitions were allowed directing to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit premises to the petitioner. The other grounds raised by the petitioner were negatived. The Rent Controller, however, allowed the R. C. No. 1270 of 1987, both on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and also on the ground that he had sub-let the scheduled premises to Sri Shyam sundar without the permission of the petitioner and the other grounds were negatived.
( 9 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Rent controller in R. C. No. 1268 of 1987 while the tenants/respondents preferred R. A. No. 615 of 1993 before the Chief Judge, City Small causes Court, Hyderabad, the petitioner preferred R. A. No. 97 of 1994 against that part of the order of the learned Rent controller negativing the grounds of sublease, availability of alternative accommodation to the respondents etc. The learned Appellate Judge by the orders impugned herein allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents by setting aside the order of eviction and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved thereagainst, the petitioner filed c. R. P. Nos. 804 and 805 of 1998 respectively.
( 10 ) SIMILARLY, against the order in R. C. No. 1269 of 1987, the respondents preferred r. A. No. 613 of 1993 and the petitioner
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
