P. VENKATARAMA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THESE two revision petitions under Sec. 22 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, rent and Eviction) Control Act arise out of the orders passed by the 3rd additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad in I. A. No. 420 of 1994 in R. C. No. 460 of 1993. The first order was passed on 22-8-1994 under Sec. 11 (1) read with sec. ll (3) of the Act. The second order was passed on 6-9-1994 directing the petitioner-tenant to vacate the premises within one month for failure to deposit the rents as per the earlier order. The two appeals preferred against the said orders having been rejected these Civil Revision Petitions are preferred, by the tenant.

( 2 ) THE respondents-landlords filed R. C. No. 660 of 1993 seeking eviction on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rents. Pending the petition, the lanlords filed an application under Sec. ll (l) of the Act to direct the petitioners-tenants to pay Rs. 19,000/- towards arrears of rent for 38 months from 1-5-1991 to 30-6-1994 at Rs. 500/- per month. The tenants pleaded that the rent was only Rs. 400/- per month. They further pleaded the rent was being paid regularly and the water and electricity charges were also being paid regularly to the concerned Departments. According to the petitioners, they paid the rents upto August,1993 and thereafter on the refusal of the respondents to receive the rents for September and October, 1993, they sent the same by Money Order which was also refused and that after receiving the notice in the R. C. the arrears of rent of Rs. 4,400/- i. e. , from September,1993 to July,1994 were paid to the respondents Counsel. The plea of the tenants that they were paying or tendering the rent during the crucial period was rejected by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Court. It was rightly pointed out by the Courts below that the fact that the respondents were passing receipts whenever they paid rents was not denied by the petitioners and as the petitioners failed to produce any receipts showing the payment of rents for the period in question, it must be taken that there was failure to pay the rents. It was also observed that there was no proof of payment of water and electricity charges. The Rent Controller proceeded on the basis that the rent was Rs. 400/- as per the version of the tenant and after deducting the amount of Rs. 4,400/- adjusted towards the rent from September, 1993 to july,1994 he held that there was default for the period from 1-5-1991 to 31-8-1993. The petitioners-tenants were directed to deposit the said amount on or before 6-9-1994 and also the future rent at Rs. 400/- per month on or before 5th of succeeding month. As there was failure to pay the rent as directed or any part thereof, eviction was ordered on 6-9-1994.

( 3 ) THE appellate Court while agreeing with the Rent Control Court that there was default in the payment of rents during the crucial period observed that the petitioners failed to comply with the order even by the date of filing the appeal or thereafter. As the payment of arrears of rent is a condition precedent for contesting the eviction petition and the arrears were not deposited or paid despite the order of the Rent Controller, the appellate Court held that the eviction was rightly ordered.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners could not make out any substantial ground to attack the finding of the Courts below that there was failure to pay the rent during the period May,1990 to August,1993. The finding reached by the Rent Controller as well as Appellate Court on the basis of the pleadings and failure to produce the receipts is unassailable. However, the main contention urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the appellate Court should have allowed time for depositing the arrears of rent while dismissing the appeal and conditionally set aside the order of eviction. It is contended that the petitioners were contesting their liability to pay the rents as well as the quantum of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document