An agreement to sell the premises subsequent to the default in rent payment does not negate the finding of wilful default, and subsequent defaults in rent payment can be considered in determining the tenant's mala fides.

MAITHILI SHARON, J.

( 1 ) THIS is tenant s revision petition against the judgment and decree dated 27-1-1993 passed by the Appellate Authority under A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act viz. , Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry in R. C. A. No. 20 of 1992.

( 2 ) THE brief facts lying in a narrow compass may be stated thus: The respondent, land-lady, filed R. C. C. No. 39 of 1980 in the Court of the Rent controller (Principal District Munsif), Rajahmundry against the petitioner on 18-4-1980 under Section 10 (2) (i) of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Acf) for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that he had committed wilful default of the payment of rent amounting to Rs. 635/-upto 31-3-1980. The tenant pleaded mat the land lady had agreed to sell the suit premises to him for Rs. 18,000/- and he had paid rs. 5,000/- as earnest money; the agreement is dated 1-9-79. On this basis, he pleaded that since there had already been an agreement of sale in this regard, hence he thought that he need not pay the rent. He further pleaded that he was always ready and willing to pay the rest of the amount of purchase money to get the registered sale deed executed in his favour. But, since the land lady did not execute the sale deed, he filed Original Suit No. 96 of 1980 against her for specific performance of the agreement of sale. That suit was dismissed and then he filed A. S. No. 85 of 1989 in the Court of the I Additional District Judge, rajahmundry. He also peladed that even before receiving the notice of R. C. C. No. 39 of 1980, he had deposited the arrears of rent referred to above in the Court and thereafter deposited the rents regularly. After trial, the Rent Controller found that there was no wilful default on the part of the tenant, hence he dismissed the petition for eviction on 3-8-1992. Aggrieved by the said decree, the land lady-respondent filed appeal R. C. A. No. 20 of 1992 on the file of the subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry viz. , the Appellate Authority under the Act. The Appellate Authority by its impugned judgment dated 27-1-1993 held that the default on the part of the tenant was not bona fide and, further, during the pendency of the R. C. C. there had occurred second default from August, 1980 onwards. On this basis, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority, now the tenant has preferred this revision petition.

( 3 ) I have heard the learned Counsel on both sides at length and have gone through the record of the case carefully.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently placed two arguments before me. Firstly, since there had been an agreement of sale executed by the respondent in favour of the petitioner, hence the default in payment of rent committed by the latter need not be termed as wilful in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in R. R. R. Gopah Rao vs. N. G. Sesharao and secondly, the subsequent defaults of payment of rent beyond August, 1980 referred to by the Appellate Authority could not form the basis for eviction because the petition filed by the respondent under Section 11 (4) of the Act in this regard in the Court of the Rent Controller had already been dismissed being not pressed. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that the factual aspects involved in the instant case do not attract the law laid down by the Surpeme Court in the decision referred to above and secondly the subsequent defaults referred to by the Appellate Authority do go to indicate that they were sufficient to prove the mala fides on the part of the petitionertenant.

( 5 ) THE ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the reported case cited supra goes to indicate that where the tenant omits to pay the rent on bpna fide plea that he had a right to purchase the property in view of prior agreement to sell with the land lord, and earnest money

Click Here to Read the rest of this document