Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.V.MARUTHI
Hyderabad Polmers Private Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
B.Rajani - Respondent
Decided On : 10-01-93
RENT CONTROL ACT - WILFUL DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF RENT - DENIAL OF TITLE - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 9(3) AND 8(5) - RELEVANCE OF PRIOR DECISIONS - ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND LEGAL PROVISIONS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant, filed two revision petitions challenging eviction orders passed against him for wilful default in payment of rent and denial of title to the landlord. The petitioner claimed that he had filed a petition under Section 9(3) of the Rent Control Act due to a dispute between the landlord and his wife, and that he had deposited the rent after the petition was dismissed. The landlord argued that the petitioner's failure to deposit the rent during the pendency of the petition amounted to wilful default.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had committed wilful default in payment of rent as he failed to deposit the rent as required under Section 9(3) of the Rent Control Act. The court also found that the petitioner had denied the title of the landlord by making specific averments in the counter-affidavit and during cross-examination, and that this denial was not bona fide.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's failure to deposit rent during the pendency of the petition under Section 9(3) of the Rent Control Act amounted to wilful default. 2. Whether the petitioner's denial of the landlord's title was bona fide.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner's failure to deposit rent during the pendency of the petition under Section 9(3) of the Rent Control Act amounted to wilful default. The court relied on the judgment in Ganeshlal vs. Meera Bai, which held that it is mandatory for the tenant to deposit rent under Section 9(3) to avoid wilful default. 2. The court held that the petitioner's denial of the landlord's title was not bona fide. The court considered the specific averments made by the petitioner in the counter-affidavit and during cross-examination, and found that these averments were made with a mala fide intention.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both revision petitions and upheld the eviction orders passed against the petitioner.
( 1 ) THESE two revision petitions are disposed of by this common judgment as they involve consideration of common questions of fact and law.
( 2 ) C. R. P. No. 46 of 1991 is filed against the Judgment of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R. A. No. 42 of 1990 confirming the order of eviction passed by the First Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad in R. C. No. 2308 of 1986.
( 3 ) C. R. P. No. 47 of 1991 is filed against the judgment of the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R. A. No. 43 of 1990 confirming the order of eviction passed by the First Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad in R. C. No. 502 of 1987.
( 4 ) THE tenant is the petitioner in both these revisions.
( 5 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 3 are the Legal Representatives of one late B. Venkaiah who originally filed R. C. No. 2308 of 1986 against the petitioners under Sec. 10 (2) of A. F. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act for eviction of the petitioners on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent for the period from January, 1986 to August, 1986, denial of title of the landlord, nuisance and using the premises for the purpose other than the purpose for which it was let out. The Rent Controller allowed the petition for eviction. On appeal, the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, confirmed the order of eviction and directed eviction of the petitioners.
( 6 ) SUBSEQUENT to the filing of R. C. No. 2308 of 1986, the landlord filed another petition viz. , R. C. No. 502 of 1987 covering the period of wilful default in payment of rent for the period from September, 1986 to February, 1987. The Rent Controller allowed this petition also. On appeal, the order of eviction was confirmed.
( 7 ) AGGRIEVED by the orders of the learned Chief Judge, the present revisions are filed.
( 8 ) THE premises in dispute viz. , No. MIG 56/a situated at Vengal Rao Nagar, Hyderabad was taken on rent by the petitioner on 15-8-1982 at Rs. 700/- per month. The rent was enhanced from time to time and as on 8-9-1986 when the eviction petition was filed, the rent was payable at the rate of Rs. 850/- per month. According to the petitioners, the premises was taken both for residence of the Managing Director of the 1st petitioner-Company and also for the office. In 1985, the petitioners filed O. S. No. 4187 of 1985 on the file of the III Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for perpetual injunction restraining the landlord and others from dispossessing the petitioners from the petition schedule premises. The suit was dismissed on 19-12-1985. On 4-2-1986, the petitioners filed R. C. No. 300 of 1986 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad under Section 9{3) of the Act on thy ground that there were disputes between the landlord and his wife and they refused to take the rent from January, 1986 and the rent sent by way of demand draft was returned with the acknowledgment refused on 10-1-1986. On 11-2-1987 the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 9 (3) was dismissed with a direction to pay arrears of rent. On 26-3-1987, the petitioner deposited Rs. 11,900/- towards arrears of rent. The landlord also filed R. C. 502/87 on 22-4-87 on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent for the period from September, 1986 to February, 1987.
( 9 ) THE Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority found that there was wilful default in payment of rent and directed eiction of the petitioner in both the revisions, aggrieved by which, the present revisions are filed.
( 10 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that sinse there were disputes between the husband and wife and since they refused to receive the rent and in view of the fact that the rent sent by way of demand draft was returned with endorsement refused on 10-1-1986, the petitioners had no other alternative except to file a petition under Section 9{3) of the Act. Since the matter was pending before the Rent Controll
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
