Wilful default in payment of rents by tenants, despite notices from landlords and the Official Receiver, constitutes a ground for eviction under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960.

MOTILAL B. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) IN these Civil Revision Petitions common question of Law is agitated and, therefore, they are disposed of by a common order. For the sake of convenience the petitioners are referred to as tenants and the respondents as landlords . The issues raised in these petitions are: (1) Whether the rent control proceedings are maintainable or not before the Rent Controller; and (2) Whether there is any default committed by the tenants in payment of rents, as alleged by the landlords. In order to examine the pros and cons of the above issues, it is necessary to trace out few facts of the case as follows:-THE residential building, subject-matter of the rent control proceedings, originally belonged to one Potti Venkateswara Rao. The said Venkateswara Rao was declared as insolvent by the Sub-Court, Vijayawada, in I. P. No. 9 of 1967. The said property was sold to the landlords in a public auction held on 15-3-1978. On 16-3-1978 the Official Receiver who conducted the auction executed the sale-deeds in favour of the landlords and got it registered on 17-3-1978. The landlords pursuant to the said purchase issued notices to the tenants on 27-4-1978 asking to pay the rents to them. The Official Receiver also issued notices under Ex. A-4 dated 23-5-1978 to that effect. During the pendency of I. P. No. 9 of 1967 the tenants were admittedly paying the rents to the Official Receiver.

( 2 ) THE landlords filed RCC Nos. ll to 14 of 1979 seeking eviction of the tenants on the ground of wilful default committed by the tenants in payment of rents from 15-3-1978 to 31-12-1978. The tenant-respondent in RCC No. 14 of 1979 contested the matter on the ground that the sons of the insolvent had issued notice requiring him to pay the rents insofar as the tenament in his custody. Therefore, there was reasonable apprehension in his mind as to who is the landlord entitled to receive the rents. Hence, he filed an application under Section 9 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short the Act) in RCC No. 123 of 1978, seeking permission to deposit the rents in the Court. Likewise, the tenants-respondents inrcc Nos. 13 and 12 of 1979 also filed similar applications - RCC Nos. 124 of 1978 and 140 of 1978 - under Section 9 (3) of the Act. Insofar as the tenant-respondent in RCC No. 11 of 1979 is concerned, the only ground which he urged in the counter-affidavit is that he paid the rents to the sons of the insolvent and, therefore, mere was no wilful default on his part. Both the Courts below - the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court - dealing with various contentions raised by the parties, held that there was wilful default on the part of the tenants-respondents in payment of rents and, therefore, directed eviction. Aggrieved by the verdicts of the Courts below the tenants filed the present civil revision petitions.

( 3 ) THE first and foremost submission made by the learned Counsel for the tenants is on the question of maintainability of the rent control proceedings by the landlords before the original forum. The learned Counsel for the tenants contend that since there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties the rent control proceedings are not maintainable and the Courts below have erroneously directed eviction as if there exists landlord and tenant relationship between the parties. The second submission made by the learned Counsel for the tenants is that there was no wilful default on the part of the tenants in payment of rents to the alleged landlords since the tenants had taken recourse by filing applications under Section 9 (3) of the Act, seeking permission to deposit the rents into the Court. It is only after the permission was granted by the Rent Controller, rents were deposited into the Court below. Therefore, the delay in deposit of rents cannot be treated as wilful default on the part of the tenants. As far as the tenant in C. R. P. No. 216 of 1990 is co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document