The interpretation of Sections 4 and 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act and the meaning of "wilful default" in the context of the Act.

( 1 ) THESE two revision petitions arise out of the proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Building under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act.

( 2 ) THE facts that have given rise to the two petitions may briefly be stated. On 5-11-1963 the landlord presented an application for the enhancement of the rent. The petition for enhancement A. B. A. No. 42 of 1963, was decided on 27-4-1965. The leased premises consist of two distinct parts, one used for a residential purpose and the other for a non-residential purpose and the other for a non-residential purpose. The premises are situate in an important locality at Tenali. It is borne out by the evidence that the Indian Bank is located opposite the leased premises. The Post Office is located in the immediate vicinity. Form the evidence one can easily gather that there is a good deal of business activity around the leased premises, not to speak of the admission that part of the leased premises had been used as godowns for the storage of paddy or fertilisers.

( 3 ) ON the date of the application for enhancement the stipulated rent was Rs. 100. 00 per mensem. Even by 1961, the annual letting value of the premises, according to the municipal registers, was Rs 2,520/- and the property tax was considerably lower. The application for enhancement was based, among others, on the ground that the annual letting value was entered in the municipal registers as Rs. 2,520. 00 and that the landlord was called upon to property tax on the basis of that entry.

( 4 ) THE application for enhancement was contested by the tenant. The rent controller, however, overruled the opposition of the tenant and fixed the rent at Rs. 210. 00 per mensem. The Appellate Authority upheld the decision C. R. P. No. 2232 of 1969 is preferred by the tenant who questions the validity of the enhancement.

( 5 ) THE order of enhancement however, has given rise to the other application, namely, one for eviction, As stated above, the rent Controllers decision fixing the fair rent was made on 17/04/1965. After the tenant preferred an appeal challenging the order of enhancement he applied for stay of rent. The application in that behalf was made on 15-9-1965 and it was I. A. No. 1330 of 1965. It was dismissed on 15-10-1965. The landlord presented the application taken on file and registered as was taken on file and registered as A. B. A. No. 27 of 1966. The tenant moved in Court in I. A. No. 288 of 1966, for a direction dispensing with the payment of the enhanced portion of the rent. This application was disallowed by the Court on 28-2-1966 with the direction that the amount should be deposited within ten days. This direction was complied with by 9-3-1966.

( 6 ) THE ground of eviction was that there was wilful default in payment of the rent inasmuch as notwithstanding the order of enhancement the tenant wilfully refrained from making payment of the enhanced rent. This plea prevailed before the Rent Controller who by his order dated 13-10-1966 ordered eviction. On appeal to the Appellate authority, On appeal to the Appellate authority, the decision was reversed. In the opinion of the Appellate Authority, there was no wilful default even if it were to be held that there was a non-payment of the due rent, The landlord has preferred C. R. P. No. 1796 of 1969 against the appellate Authoritys decision which negatived his prayer for eviction.

( 7 ) THESE who revision petitions were directed to be heard together. It is logical to deal with C. R. P. No. 2232 of 1969 in the first instance, because if that petition succeeds, the claim for enhancement of the rent fails and consequently no question of default in the payment of rent would arise. Mr. G. V. R. Mohan Rao for the petitioner contends that the enhancement of rent has been made in violation of the terms of Section 4 of the Act. He contends that in fixing the fair rent under the provisions of Section 4, the main criterion should be the preva