A tenant who does not pay the rent every month as per the rental agreement, but instead pays it at irregular intervals at his convenience, can be held as a wilful defaulter.

( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against the Judgment passed by the Subordinate Judge, Nizamabad in Rent Appeal no. 15 of 1972 confirming the order passed by the Rent Controller in R. C. No. 11 of 1968 dismissing the eviction petition. The landlady is the petitioner and the tenant is the respondent in this petition.

( 2 ) THE landlady of the premises No. 4-3-244 (new) situated at Old Market, gandhi Chowk, Nizamabad, seeking eviction of the tenant (who is the respondent in this revision petition) on the grounds of wilful default and personal requirement filed the eviction petition R. C. No. 11 of 1968.

( 3 ) REGARDING the wilful default, the petitioner contends that the respondent entered into rent agreement with her agreeing to pay a monthly rental of Rs. 38 and he failed to pay the rents every month and was paying rents once in two months or three months or six months as he pleases and he remitted the rent for the months of January and February, 1966 through money order and thus the respondent committed wilful default in the payment of rents regularly.

( 4 ) REGARDING the personal requirement the petitioner contends that the portion of a house in which she is residing is very small one and her sister and sister s children are also living with her and hence they are subjecting themselves to hardship and inconvenience for want of sufficient accommodation and she, therefore, requires the premises in the occupation of the respondent for their residential purpose.

( 5 ) THE petitioner gave evidence as P. W. 1. She also examined her relation who is acquainted with her family affairs as P. W. 2.

( 6 ) AS against this evidence the respondent examined himself as R. W. 4. He also examined two Bill Collectors as R. Ws. 2 and 3 and a person who is acquainted with the respondent and his house as R. W. 1.

( 7 ) THE Rent Controller held that the petitioner s sister and her husband are having four houses at Phulong in the same town and they are residing in one of those houses and they are not dependent upon the petitioner and hence the requirement is not bona fide.

( 8 ) REGARDING the wilful default, the Rent vontroller held that though the rent was payable every month, the petitioner was receiving once in six months and even one year as deposed by the respondent and that there was deposit of two months rent with the petitioner and so he has been depositing rents once in two months and the petitioner has been accepting it and hence it does not amount to wilful default. So holding, he dismissed the petition.

( 9 ) AGGRIEVED with the said findings, the petitioner preferred Rent Appeal before the appellate authority.

( 10 ) THE appellate authority also held that the rent was being paid once in two or three months and it was being accepted by the petitioner and hence the question of wilful default does not arise. He also held that the rent due was sent by money order, but was refused by the petitioner and hence the respondent cannot be deemed to have committed wilful default and thus he agreed with the Rent Controller on this finding. Even with regard to the question of personal requirement the appellate authority held that when the petitioner s sister and her children are not the dependents of the petitioner and when the husband of her sister is alive and when they own a residential house in Phulong locality, the requirement cannot be said to be bona fide and so holding, he agreed with the Rent Controller on this question.

( 11 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner now contends that the petitioner s requirement of the portion occupied by the respondent for providing accommodation to her sister and her children should be treated as bona fide requirement. In support of this contention, he relied upon the decision of the division Bench of this Court in Parasuramaiah v. Lakshmamma.

( 12 ) HE also contended that the respondent is not entitled to pay the rents once in two months or six months or at irregular intervals and the acceptance by the peti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document