Back
1975 Supreme(AP) 164
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : PUNNAIAH
Patthan Khan - Appellant
Versus
Syed Pasha - Respondent
Decided On : 09-12-75
Wilful default in payment of rent occurs when the tenant consistently pays rent at irregular intervals contrary to the rental agreement and without any satisfactory explanation.
Headnote:
EVICTION - PERSONAL REQUIREMENT - WILFUL DEFAULT - LANDLORD'S REQUIREMENT FOR BUSINESS - TENANT'S DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF RENT - INTERPRETATION OF WILFUL DEFAULT - SECTION 10(2)(I) OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT AND EVICTION) CONTROL ACT.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed an eviction petition on two grounds: personal requirement and wilful default. The landlord contended that he wanted to shift his business of hides and skins to the building in which the tenant's premises were situated, as the residents of the locality where his current business was located had raised objections. Regarding wilful default, the landlord alleged that the tenant had not paid rents regularly and owed arrears of Rs. 105/- by the date of the eviction notice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the landlord's requirement was bonafide as he had already evicted tenants from the first and second floors of the building and needed the entire building to carry on his business. The court also found that the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent, as he had consistently paid rents at irregular intervals contrary to the rental agreement and without any satisfactory explanation.
Issues: 1. Whether the landlord's requirement for the premises was bonafide? 2. Whether the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the landlord's requirement was bonafide as he had already evicted tenants from the first and second floors of the building and needed the entire building to carry on his business. The court rejected the tenant's argument that the landlord had other buildings and could run his business there, stating that the choice of which building to use was entirely up to the landlord. 2. The court held that the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent, as he had consistently paid rents at irregular intervals contrary to the rental agreement and without any satisfactory explanation. The court rejected the tenant's argument that the landlord had allowed him to accumulate arrears and pay them in lump sums, as the landlord had denied this and there was no evidence to support the tenant's claim.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the eviction order passed by the lower courts.
( 1 ) THE revision petition Is directed against the judgment passed by the Principal Subordinate judge, Narasaraopet In c. M. A. No. 37/1974 confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller narasaraopet In A B. A. No. 16/1972.
( 2 ) THE respondent is the landlord who filed the eviction petition on two grounds viz. personal requirement and wilful default.
( 3 ) REGARDING personal requirement he contends that he is carrying on business in hides and skins in a house situated in a residential locality and the inhabitants in the locality have been raising objections for the said business and hence he wants to shift the same to the building in which the premises of the revision petitioner is situated and that building is suitable for the business which he is carrying on and he has already got evicted the tenants in the occupation of the first and second floor and the revision petitioner did not vacate when he intimated him the purpose for which he wants him to vacate and unless the entire building is secured It is not possible for him to carry on his business and the requirement Is, therefore, bonafide.
( 4 ) REGARDING wilful default, the respondent-landlord contends that the petitioner tenant never paid; rents regularly and used to pay at inregular intervals and by the date of the notice for eviction was issued- the petitioner was. due to pay the arrears to the tune of rs. 105/ -.
( 5 ) THE revision petitioner contends that the alleged personal requirement Is, not bonafide and that he did not commit any wilful default. Regarding personal requirement, he contends that the landlord has some other buildings and he is, therefore, not entitled to seek eviction of the premises In his occupation. Regarding wilful default, the tenant contends that the rate of monthly rent Is rs. 50/- and hence the landlord did not choose to collect or receive the rents every month and allowed the amounts to be accumulated so that he can realise the rents in lump sum and he was receiving the amounts In lump sum and there are no arrears to be paid by the date of eviction petition and hence he did not commit any wilful default.
( 6 ) THE Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority did not accept the defence pleaded by the tenant and held thar the tenant committed willful default and the requirement of the landlord is bonafide. Sri P. V. R. Sarma, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner assails both the findings In this revision. He contends that the requirement Is not at all bonafide as the premises in the occupation of the tenant is a small one and it Is not sufficient for the alleged business to be carried on by the landlord.
( 7 ) REGARDING the wilful default, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the decision of the Division bench of this Court in Vasudeva vs Misra bai (1973-11 A. P. L. J. 429) did not take into consideration the decision is Sharfanji vs. Ramaiah (1958-11 An W. R. 321) on which Sharfuddin Ahmed. J. , relied and the ruling of the Madras High Court in L. Subbayya vs. The Subordinate judge vijayawada (AIR 1951 Madras. 864) relied; on by Sriramulu, j , in N. Lakshminarasaiah vs. Krishna (1972 APLJ 123) related to the old Madras Rent Control act in which there was no expression wilful default and) the landlord was entitled to evict under that Act If there was mere default. But the amended Act provided, the expression "wilful default" for evicting the tenant and the same expression is provided In the Andhra pradesh Rent Control Act and the difference between the two diclslons relied upon by Sharfuddin Ahmed, j. , and sriramulu, J. . were not brought to the notice of the Division Bench and hence the matter should be referred to the Full bench for an authoritative pronouncement on this aspect. He. therefore, contends that there is no wilful default in the case on hand.
( 8 ) REGARDING the requirement of the landlord, the contention of the tenant that the landlord has other buildings and he
