Back
2013 Supreme(AP) 207
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.
Mahender Kumar Gandhi
Versus
S. Ramkumar (died) per LRs. & Others
C.R.P.No.1289 of 2007
Decided On: 22-03-2013
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Vijay Kumar Herur, Advocate.
For the Respondents:P. Suresh, Advocate.
Headnote:
Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 - Section 22 - Rule 5 – Eviction of tenants - Petitioner/landlord has filed this revision AP Buildings aggrieved by order of Appellate Authority Act-cum-Chief judge city Small Causes Court - Principal Rent Controller - Petitioner said was filed by before Principal Rent Controller Hyderabad for eviction of respondent contending that is owner of R.C.C schedule premises which was let out to respondent on a monthly rent of tenancy was oral and rent was payable on or before of every succeeding month - Respondent was irregular in payment of rent and willfully committed default in payment of rent from February to June and fell in arrears - Petitioner in response to which respondent sent insufficient amount by way of a cheque for the said two months with reply - Petitioner had issued a further reply denying the allegations and returned cheque for insufficient amount respondent intentionally and deliberately withheld monthly rent for May and June and respondent is thus liable to be evicted on ground of willful default in payment of rent By order - Rent Controller allowed and directed eviction of respondents on grounds of willful default cessation to occupy premises and material alteration of schedule premises - He rejected plea of bonafide personal requirement - It was also pleaded that petitioner bonafidely requires premises for own business respondent also kept RC schedule premises vacant without doing any business and materially altered R.C. schedule premises by removing old existing wooden door on front door and erecting a shutter apart from removing entire flooring and interior middle wall – Held, From above decision is clear that if tenant opts for a procedure must mandatorily comply with procedure prescribed above Rules he should not only deposit the rent but also deliver copy of challenge for deposit of rent in office of Rent Controller in order to enable Rent Controller to cause maintenance of proper accounts sub Rule should also give notice of deposit to landlord within days of delivery of copy of challenge in one or other of the modes specified in Rule - If this is not done it would amount to willful default in making valid payment or lawful tender of rent by tenant to landlord - Counsel for respondents that there is no obligation cast upon respondent to either serve notice of deposit of rent in directly on petitioner or on advocate appearing for petitioner or of depositing prescribed fee as per Rule for service of notice by Rent Controller cannot be countenanced and is accordingly rejected - Mere deposit of rents before Rent Controller after securing an order of Act and making deposit pursuant thereto or delivering a copy of challenge or deposit before Rent Controller would not suffice - Appellate Authority decision had come before decision in Full Bench and therefore Appellate Authority did not have benefit of Full Bench decision - Petition allowed (Para 32)
1. The petitioner/landlord has filed this revision under Section 22 of the AP Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’) aggrieved by the order dt.23-10-2006 in R.A.No.227 of 2004 of the Appellate Authority under the Act-cum-Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad reversing the order dt.29-06-2004 in R.C.No.483 of 1993 of the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
2. The said R.C. was filed by the petitioner before the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad for eviction of the 1st respondent contending that he is the owner of the R.C.C. schedule premises which was let out to the 1st respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.200/-; the tenancy was oral and rent was payable on or before 5th of every succeeding month; the 1st respondent was irregular in payment of rent and wilfully committed default in payment of rent from February 1992 to June 1992 and fell in arrears of Rs.1000/-; after repeated demands, the arrears were paid on 25-07-1992 which were received under protest; again there was a wilful default in payment of rent for November and December 1992; a legal notice dt.18.1.1993 was issued by the petitioner in response to which 1st respondent sent insufficient amount by way of a cheque for the said two months with reply dt.25-01-1993; petitioner had issued a further reply dt.15-02-1993 denying the allegations and returned the cheque for the insufficient amount; 1st respondent intentionally and deliberately withheld the monthly rent for May and June 1993; and the 1st respondent is thus liable to be evicted on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent for May and June 1993. It was also pleaded that the petitioner bonafidely requires the premises for it’s own business; the 1st respondent also kept the RC schedule premises vacant without doing any business; and he materially altered the R.C. schedule premises by removing the old existing wooden door on the front door and erecting a shutter apart from removing entire flooring and interior middle wall.
3. The 1st respondent filed counter denying that he committed wilful default in payment of rents and stated that from the beginning it was the practice of the petitioner personally to come and collect rents from him once in four months or once in five months and sometimes even once in a year; there was no reason for the 1st respondent to doubt the bona fides of the petitioner or to feel alarmed when the petitioner had not come for such a long time to receive the rents; the petitioner did not come to collect the rents for the months of November 1991, December 1991 and January 1992; so he sent the amount by means of money order; it was returned with an endorsement “payee not found”; he again sent rents for the period November 1991 to April 1992 on 30-04-1992 by money order which was returned on 12-05-1992; in May 1992 he again sent an amount of Rs.100/-by money order which was returned back to him on the ground that the petitioner refused to receive it; the rent of Rs.100/- sent by money order for the month of June 1992 was refused by petitioner on 02-07-1992; thereafter petitioner expressed his willingness to receive the rent from July 1992 on condition that 1st respondent enhanced the rent to Rs.200/-p.m; a receipt dt.07-02-1992 for Rs.600/- was issued representing the rents for the period November1991 to and January 1992; a receipt dt.25-07- 1992 for Rs.1000/- was issued representing rents for the period February 1992 to June 1992; when he sought to pay the rent for July 1992 @ 200/-, the petitioner did not agree to receive the same and demanded further enhancement; when he sent Rs.200/- towards rent for July 1992 by money order on 24-08-2012, it was refused by the petitioner on 11-09-1992; he sent Rs.400/- towards rent for July and August 1992 which the petitioner received with an incorrect endorsement “under protest”; likewise rents for months September 1992 and October 1992 were received by the petitioner with an endorsement “un
