( 1 ) A learned single Judge of this Court by an order-dated 28-8-2001 has referred the following questions to a Division Bench. 1. Whether the ground of wilful default will not be available to a landlord even if the irregular payment of rents had been clearly established on the sole ground that the landlord had received the rents before the institution of the RCC despite the fact that the rents were received by the landlord on protest and without prejudice to his rights?2. What is the effect of the ratio laid down in Dakaya Alias Dakaiah v. Anjani, 1996 (1) ALT 1 (SC), K. A. Ramesh and others v. Susheela Bai, (1998) 3 SCC 58, and M Bhaskar, v. J. Venkataramanaidu, (1996) 6 SCC 228. 3. WHETHER doctrine of waiver can be made applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case?4. Whether running of business by a family member in the name of the firm will amount to sub-letting within the meaning of A. P. Buildings (Lease, rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 in the light of the provisions of Indian partnershdip Act?

( 2 ) THE revision petition arises out of an order of the learned Principal Senior civil Judge, Warangal in RCA No. 5 of 1994 confirming an order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller, Warangal in rcc No. 49 of 1984.

( 3 ) BRIEFLY noted, the facts are: The premises bearing No. 8/127/1 situated at chowrasta Warangal has fallen to the share of the respondent-landlord in the family partition effected in terms of final decree dated 11-10-1973 in OS No. 48 of 1973 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Warangal. One Gundu Chadramouli (died) was the tenant of the premises even prior to the partition. After partition he had executed lease deed on 29-6-1981 in favour of the respondent leasing the premises at Rs. 500/- per month. The period of lease was for 11 months commencing from 1-7-1981 and ending by 31-5-1982. The purpose of lease was for running a printing press. Default in payment of even one-month rent was agreed to be considered as wilful default. By the end of October, 1981 the tenant fell in arrears of rent to a tune of Rs. 3,000/- i. e. , for a period of six months ending 31-10-1981. The respondent addressed a letter to the tenant on 14-11-1981 calling upon him to pay the said amount and also to pay Rs. 6000/- as advance and requested him to credit the monthly rents to the account of the landlord in Canara Bank, Warangal. The tenant paid the amount on 15-8-1982 due upto 31-10-1981. Thereafter, the tenant paid the rents at irregular intervals i. e. , rs. 1500/- on 13-4-1982, Rs2000/- on 23-7-1982, rs. 1000/- on 16-10-1982, Rs. 1000/- on 30-10-1982, Rs. 2,000/- on 21-12-1983, rs. 2000/- on 20-3-1984 and Rs. 2000/- on 31-3-1984 totalling to Rs. l1,500/- upto 30-9-1983. The landlord, therefore, claims that he is a wilfil defaulter. The lease had expired on 31-5-1982 and with effect from 1-6-1982, the lease shall be deemed to be from month to month.

( 4 ) THE tenant was running the press as a partnership concern and it will amount to violation of sub-letting and thus same amounts to the terms of the lease. On 1-8-1984, the tenant had acknowledged the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 5,000/- from 1-10-1983 to 31-7-1984 and undertaken to deposit the same to the SB account of the respondent. On 3-8-1984 the landlord issued notice calling upon the tenant to pay the arrears of rent and to handover the vacant possession of the premises by 15-8-1984. Thereafter, the tenant sent a pay order for rs. 5000/- on 7-8-1984 to the advocate of the respondent representing arrears of rent upto 31-7-1984. He had not paid the rent for August, 1984 payable on or before 6-8-1984.

( 5 ) ON behalf of the revision petitioner it was contended that while replying to the notice issued by the landlord, the tenant had sent a draft pay order on 7-8-1984 for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- and the same having been accepted prior to filing of the eviction petition, no cause of action arose for filing a petition on the ground