P. VENKATARAMA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) ON the ground of wilful default in payment of rent subsequent to the eviction. petition, the eviction was ordered by both the Courts. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the arrears of rent were received by the landlord even before the eviction petition was filed and, therefore, the eviction petition was not maintainable on that ground as held by both the Courts.

( 2 ) AS regards the default in payment of rents subsequent to the filing of eviction petition, learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in K. A. Ramesh vs. Susheela Bai. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand relies on certain decisions of the learned single Judges of this Court for the contrary proposition. the second point is a debatable one. Even then, the wilful default in payment of rents prior to the filing of eviction petition is sufficient to evict the petitioner-tenant. Not doubt, the finding in this regard is against the respondent- landlord. But the fact remains that the arrears of rent were received under protest as seen from Ex. A-1 and within a short time thereafter the landlord filed the eviction petition. Hence, the plea of waiver or the like cannot be raised. It is true that the finding of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Court on the second point is in favour of the petitioner. But, as held by this Court in B. Ranganayakulu and others vs. Mathupalli Nageswara Rao the correctness of the adverse finding can be canvassed by the respondent. The wide language of section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 lends support to the principle laid down in the aforementioned decision (supra ). Hence, the respondent is entitled to object to the finding recorded by the Rent Control court and the Appellate Court. There can be no doubt that the evidence on record justifies the inference that there was wilful default in payment of rent for about ten months prior to the filing of eviction petition. Hence I see no merit in the revision petition. Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Four months time is granted for vacation of premises.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document