A tenant who fails to pay rent in accordance with the terms of the rental agreement or the provisions of the Rent Control Act is a wilful defaulter and is subject to eviction.

RAMANUJULU NAIDU, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition arises under the Andhra Pradesh buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. The landlord is the Revision Petitioner.

( 2 ) THE material facts so far as they are relevant are stated below :- the respondent has been in occupation of a portion of the suit building as the petitioner s tenant on a monthly rent of Rs 18/- exclusive of electricity charges. The tenant fell into arears of rent for six months from June, to November, 1964 i. e. Rs. 18/- and electricity charges for three months, September, October and November, 1964. The petitioner filed an application before the Rent Controller for the eviction of the respondent on the ground that he was a wilful defaulter. In his counter the respondent raised two pleas. (1) The land-lord used to come and collect the rents once in six months or so at his convenience and the rent fell into arrears because of the landlord s failure to come and collect the rent. (2) He was suffering from severe chronic stomach ache and was not attending the shop.

( 3 ) IN view of those circumstances beyond his control, he informed the petitioner that he will pay the arrears after recovery of his health, to which the petitioner agreed. He was, therefore, not a wilful defaulter. The terms of tenancy are evidenced by a written agreement, under which the tenant agreed to pay the rent soon after the expiry of the month without fail.

( 4 ) THE petitioner and the respondent are in occupation of and earring on their respective business in adjacent mulgies. On the evidence led by the parties in support of their respective cases, the Rent Controller found that the tenant was not a wilful defaulter and accordingly dismissed the landlord s petition for eviction of his tenant. In appeal the learned Subordinate Judge agreed with the view taken by the learned Rent Controller that the tenant was not a wilful defaulter. He therefore upheld the order of dismissal. Hence this revision petition.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel Sri Lakshminarayana, appearing for the petitioner contended that in view of the written rental agreement, the tenant was under an obligation to pay the rent soon after the expiry of the month. He failed to do so without any reasonable cause. He was, therefore, a wilful defaulter. The Rent Controller erred in resting his decision on the decision of a single Judge of this Court in vurimi Ramaratnamma Vs. R Panayya in preference to a decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in L Subbayya V. Sub-Judge. Vijayawad which was binding on him. The learned judge, who decided Varimi Ramaratnamma v. Ranga Panayya was under a mistaken impression that the language of the corresponding sections relating to eviction under the Andhra Pradesh and Madras rent Control Acts, was different. That is not factually correct. If he was not under that mistaken impression the learned Judge would have followed the decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High court in L. Subbayya V Sub judge Vijayawada. It is a clear case, where the tenant has wilfully defaulted to pay rent. Even during the pendency of the rent control case, the various exhibits filed in the case, amply prove that the tenant was a chronic defaulter in payment of rent and the authorities below hopelessly erred in dismissing the eviction petition.

( 6 ) THE learned Counsel Sri Ramachandra Murthy, appearing for the tenant submitted that on the date of the filing of the petition the tenant was not in arrears. There are no provisions under the Rent control Act, under which a petitioner can withdraw his first petition with liberty to file a second petition on the same cause of action. The second petition, should therefore be considered as a fresh petition and by the date on which the second petition was filed the tenant had already paid the arrears and when there was no subsisting cause of action on the date of the second petition, the second petition should have been dismissed in limini. By a long an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document