THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE SAMBASI VA RAO NAI DU

JUDGMENT:

This Civil Revision petition has been filed by the petitioner in R.C.No.48 of 2009 on the file of Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad under Section 22 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (in short ‘Act, 1960’) against the judgment and decree in R.A.No.203 of 2010 dated 22-09-2011, where under, the appeal preferred by the respondent herein against the judgment of trial Court in R.C.No.48 of 2009 was allowed. Consequentially, the petition filed by the petitioner herein for eviction of the respondent/tenant was dismissed.

2. Before adverting to the grounds under which this revision is preferred, for the sake of convenience, there is a necessity to give a brief note of the proceedings initiated before the Rent Control Act. The parties will be referred to in the same ranking which was used in the original control case filed before the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad.

3. The petitioner being Land-lord of property bearing Municipal No.3-6-363/1 at Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, filed R.C.No.48 of 2009 under Section 10(2)(i) of A.P. Rent Control Act, 1960, seeking eviction of the respondent from the schedule property. According to the petition filed before the Rent Controller, it was the specific case of the petitioner herein that the property shown in the petition schedule was let out to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.715/-. The respondent was irregular in payment of rent as well as the property tax. The respondent paid rent up to February, 2003 and thereafter, there was default in payment of rent till January, 2009. Therefore, the petitioner got issued a notice on 20-01-2006 demanding the payment of arrears of rent. But there was no proper response, thereby, the petitioner/land-lord filed the above referred Rent Control case seeking the eviction of the tenant from the premises on the ground of failure and willful default in payment of the rent.

4. A counter has been filed by the respondent alleging that they took the property from the petitioner in January, 1991 on a monthly rent of Rs.400/- which was subsequently enhanced from time to time, as on the date of above said Rent Control case, it was Rs.715/- per month. The respondent claimed that the liability to pay the property tax was on the petitioner/landlord. He has also claimed that the petitioner informed him that they will collect the rent in lumpsum i.e., once in 6 months or 11 months as per his convenience. There was no lease agreement. The respondent has also claimed that the petition schedule property is not a building within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act. The respondent has claimed that though they offered rent for February, 2003 and subsequent months, the petitioner did not collect the rent, therefore, there was no such willful default.

5. The respondent has also claimed that since the petitioner did not collect the rent, he has deposited the rent before the Court to the credit of Rent Control case. A part from this, the respondent has claimed that the building requires necessary repairs, he spent huge amount for making the building habitable. Therefore, he has prayed for dismissal of the Rent Control case.

6. The trial Court having framed appropriate points and after examining the witnesses produced by the parties, came to a conclusion that there was willful default in payment of the rents by the respondent/tenant, thereby, he is liable to vacate the premises, accordingly, allowed the petition by order dated 21-06-2010. The respondent was directed to vacate the premises within one month from the date of the judgment.

7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the respondent has filed appeal before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad vide R.A.No.203 of 2010. The first appellate Court having appreciated the arguments of both parties and evidence produced before the Court, came to the conclusion that there was no such willful default in payment of rent by the responde