The grounds available for the landlord prior to the relationship covered under the Act are still available if not repugnant to the Act.

ORDER :

1. This revision has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2011 in R.A.No.358 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad (lower appellate Court), wherein and whereby the order dated 31.08.2010 in R.C.No.194 of 2006 on the file of the IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad (Rent Controller), was confirmed. R.C.No.194 of 2006, filed by the respondent herein for eviction of the petitioner herein from the property in question, was allowed.

2. The petitioner herein is the tenant and the respondent herein is the landlord. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as the tenant and the landlord, respectively.

3. The pleadings of the landlord show that he is the owner of premises bearing No.5-4-423/8/A, Ground floor of Hotel Shanti Nivas Building, Nampally Cross Roads, Hyderabad, (hereinafter, it is referred to as ‘scheduled premises’). He let out the scheduled premises to the tenant @ Rs.900/- per month. The landlord sought eviction on two grounds, one is willful default in payment of rent and the other is subletting the scheduled premises by the tenant to third party without any right. The original tenancy was entered on 15.10.1982 and the rent payable was 10th of every next succeeding month. Default was pleaded from October, 1999 to March, 2006, total arrears of rent comes to Rs.70,200/-. It was also pleaded that the tenant filed R.C.No.217 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, against the landlord for permission to deposit the rents and the same was allowed by order dated 15.02.2002. Challenging the same, the landlord filed R.A.No.157 of 2002 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and the same was also allowed by order dated 05.09.2005, setting aside the order dated 15.02.2002 on the ground that the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad had no jurisdiction since the rent exceeds the statutory limit prescribed under the Telangana State Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, the Act). Challenging the said order, the tenant preferred a civil revision petition and he withdrew the same subsequently. Thereafter, the landlord filed the present R.C.

4. The case of the tenant is that he admits the original tenancy, initial rent and the existing rent. He also pleaded that he deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- with the landlord towards refundable deposit. He also pleaded that the property tax was excluded from the rent. The rent from July, 1999 to December, 1999 was paid to the hotel representative of the landlord by way of cheques, but the cheques were not encahsed. Therefore, the tenant sent the rent amount for the months from January, 2000 to July, 2000 through postal orders. For the months of August and September of 2000 the rent was paid to the hotel representative of the landlord through cheques. The tenant sent the money orders for the months from October, 2000 to February, 2001. Subsequently, the tenant filed R.C.No.217 of 2001 for permission to deposit the rent, and upon permission, he deposited the rent before the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad for the period from October, 2000 to May, 2001. He also deposited the rents upto August, 2005 i.e., till R.A.No.157 of 2002 was allowed observing that I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad had no jurisdiction to entertain R.C.No.217 of 2001. Subsequently, the tenant preferred the revision, but the same was withdrawn. After service of summons in the present rent control case i.e., R.C.No.194 of 2006, the tenant paid rent through pay orders of Rs.7,800/- covering the period from September, 2005 to April, 2006 and Rs.10,800/- covering the period from October, 1999 to September, 2000. According to the tenant, there was no default in payment of rent. He also pleaded that there was no subletting of the scheduled premises. On the above grounds, the tenant sought to dismiss the case.

5. The Rent Controller,