L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is filed under Section 22 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and eviction) Control Act, 1960. (hereinafter referred to as act ) by the tenant.

( 2 ) THE respondent is the owner of there sidential premises bearing No. 5-9-496 and 497 situated at Gunfoundary, hyderabad. The petitioner is the tenant in respect of the said premises, on a monthly rent of Rs. 130/- including water and electricity charges. The respondent filed r. C. NO. 745 of 1992 in the Court of Principal rent Controller, Hyderabad seeking eviction of the petitioner on the grounds of wilful default of payment of rent from 1-11-1990 to 31-10-1992 and that she requires the premises for her personal use and occupation. In the petition, the respondent pleaded that the petitioner paid rents up to October, 1990 and thereafter stopped paying the rents and that he is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 3,120/- towards accumulated rents up to October, 1992. The r. C. was filed on 10-11-1992. It was also stated that on account of the uncongenial atmosphere in her present place of residence and frequent quarrels between her husband and other members of the family, she needs the schedule premises for her personal occupation.

( 3 ) THE respondent (sic. petitioner) filed a counter resisting the petition. It was pleaded that the rents were being offered from time to time and when there was refusal on the part of the respondent to accept the rents, the petitioner had taken steps, such as by sending the rent by money order and also initiating proceedings under Section 8 of the act. He has also denied the plea of the respondent as regards personal occupation, on behalf of the respondent she examined herself, as P. W. 1 and she did not adduce any documentary evidence. The petitioner got himself examined as R. W. 1 and marked exs. R-1 to R-18.

( 4 ) ON appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Rent Controller rejected the plea of the respondent that she needs premises for her personal occupation. So far as the plea of wilful default is concerned, the Rent Controller held that the petitioner herein committed wilful default in payment of rents and accordingly directed eviction of the petitioner through order-dated 13-4-1994. Aggrieved thereby the respondent preferred R. A. No. 379 of 1995 in the Court of Additional Chief Judge, city Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The appellate Authority also upheld the findings of the Rent Controller through its order dated 15-11-1999. The petitioner challenges the concurrent finding of the rent Controller and Rent Control Appellate authority in this revision.

( 5 ) SRI T. V. Rajeevan, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that even before the respondent filed R. C. under Section 10 of the Act on 10-11-1992, the petitioner had taken necessary steps in accordance with the Act and filed R. C. No. 785 of 1991 before the Rent Controller under Section 8 of the act. In pursuance of the orders passed therein, the petitioner deposited rents for eleven months on 12-12-1991 and thereafter. the rents were being paid intermittently. According to him, the rent for the months from January 1991 to November 1991 were deposited on 12-12-1991. So far as the rents for the months of November and December 1990 are concerned, he states that the same were paid to the brother of the respondent. Relying on certain judgments of the supreme Court as well as this Court he states that inasmuch as the arrears of rents stood paid by the time the petition was filed under Section 10, and the non-payment, even if there existed, if any, should not be treated as wilful default and accordingly, he submits that the findings of the Rent controller as well as the Appellate authority on the question of wilful default cannot be sustained.

( 6 ) SRI P. Sridhar Reddy the learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand submits that the deposit of rents oft 12-12-1991 cannot be said to be in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document