T RAMAKRISHNAIAH Vs. N SESHADRI
LAWS(APH)-1971-7-33
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on July 13,1971

T.RAMAKRISHNAIAH Appellant
VERSUS
N.SESHADRI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order passed under Section 11 (4) of the Andhra Pradesh (Buildings Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act hereinafter referred to as the Act asking the tenant to deliver possession of the building in question to the landlord. Hence this petition by the tenant. The sole respondent herein is the landlord. Admittedly the petitioner is the tenant of the respondent for a building. The respondent filed a petition before the Rent Controller under the provisions of the Act to evict the petitioner on the grounds of wrongful waste to the building, wilful default in payment of rent and putting the building for use other than for which it was let. During the pendency of the eviction, the respondent made an application to the Rent Controller under Section 11 of the Act to direct the petitioner to pt him in possession of the building on the ground that the petitioner failed to pay or deposit the rent during the pendency of the eviction proceedings. It appears that on the ground that the respondent refused to receive the rent when it was tendered, the petitioner was making some deposit into the Government treasury. The petitioner contested the application alleging that he made the deposits within the time prescribed by law there is no written contract between the parties and in any case the court has Power to excuse he delay if really there was any delay. The Rent Controller by coming to the conclusion that the rent has been paid or deposited up to date and that for the purpose of Section 11 of the Act the Court has only to see whether the rent has been paid or not dismissed the application. On appeal to the Subordinate Judge by the respondent the Subordinate Judge holding that in spite of opportunity granted to the petitioner on the undertaking given by his own advocate that he would deposit the rents into Court, the petitioner failed to pay or deposit rent due as on 1-9-1970 for the month of September, 1970 within 15 days from 1-9-1970 or till 20-9-1970, the date on which the learned Subordinate Judge pronounced the order, allowed the appeal and as provided under Section 11 (4) of the Act directed the petitioner to deliver possession of the building to the respondent. It is this order that is assailed in this Civil Revision Petition.
(2.) It appears from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge that when the appeal was taken up for hearing on 18-8-1970 on the representation made by the advocate for the petitioner that his client would deposit into Court all the rents due up to the date of the deposit, the learned Subordinate Judge gave an opportunity to withdraw all the amounts, which the petitioner had already deposited in the Government treasury etc., and to deposit the amounts in his Court and subsequently when the matter was again called on 14-9-1970 the petitioner offered to deposit only a sum of Rs. 1,750;.00 which represented the rent due up to the end of August, 1970. Then it was represented on behalf of the respondent that the entire rent due by that date was Rs. 1800.00 as rent for September also had to be paid by 1-9-1970, as according to the terms of agreement of lease every months rent has to be paid in advance on the first of every month, and the petitioner was bound to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 50.00 also representing the rent due for the month of September. On the other hand it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that he is not bound to pay every months rent on he first of the month in advance and therefore what was offered to pay represented the entire amount due by the petitioner by that date.
(3.) Thereupon the learned Subordinate Judge had to consider the question whether by offering and depositing the amount of Rs. 1750/- on 14-9-1970. the petitioner has deposited all the arrears of rent due by that date. The learned Subordinate Judge after considering the matter came to the conclusion that the petitioner is bound to pay to the respondent he rent in advance on the first of every month. As provided under Section 10 (2) of the Act a tenant 9s bound to pay the rent due by him to the landlord within 15 days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of the tenancy with his landlord or in the absence of any such agreement by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable. On the ground that the petitioner failed to deposit the rent due for the month of September, 1970 even by 28-9-1970 that is within fifteen days from 1-9-1970 the learned Subordinate Judge passed the order in question.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.