Decided on October 13,1972

TARA SINGH Appellant
WAHID BI Respondents


- (1.) This is a petition under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings ( Lease, Rent and Eviction ) Control Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act seeking to revise the order of the learned District Judge, Adilabad in C. M. A. No. 18 of 1969.
(2.) The petitioner herein is the tenant of the respondent-landlady. The respondent filed O. P. No. 1/1968 on the file of the Rent Controller, Nirmal on 2-2-1968 under Section 12 of the Act for recovery of possession of the premises leased out to the petitioner for the purpose of repair and reconstruction. The respondent subsequently filed O. P. No. 2/1968 on 15-10-1968 for eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises under Section 10 (2) (i) of the Act on the ground that he committed wilful default in payment of rent from February 1968 to September 1968. O. P. No. 1/1968 was allowed and an appeal to the District Judge and revision to this Court were unsuccessful. Finally, the landlady took possession of the premises on 7-8-71. The Rent Controller dismissed O. P. No. 2/68 on 21-3-1969 holding that there was no wilful default in payment of the rent. The respondent preferred an appeal to the District Judge. The learned District Judge, on a consideration of evidence and the surrounding circumstances in the case, held that the petitioner committed wilful default in payment of rent and ordered eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises on 13-3-1972. The petitioner has now preferred this revision petition.
(3.) The first contention before me on behalf of the petitioner was that an order of eviction cannot be passed again under Section 10 of the Act as the petitioner has handed over possession of the premises in pursuance of the order passed in O. P. No. 1/68 filed under Section 12 of the Act. Before I proceed to consider this contention, it is necessary to read Sections 10 and 12 of the Act. The relevant portion of Section 10 which deals with eviction of tenant reads as follows :-- Section 10 (1) : A tenant shall not be evicted whether in execution of a decree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisions of this section or Sections 12 and 13 : Provided that where the tenant denies the title of the landlord or claims right of permanent tenancy, the Controller shall decide whether the denial or claim is bona fide and if he records a finding to that effect, the landlord shall be entitled to sue for eviction of the tenant in a Civil Court and the Court may pass a decree for eviction on any of the grounds mentioned in the said Sections, notwithstanding that the Court finds that such denial does not involve forfeiture of the lease or that the claim is unfounded. 2. A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satisfied. (i) that the tenant has not paid or rendered the rent due by him in respect of the building within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of 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, or xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx the Controller shall make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building and if the Controller is not so satisfied, he shall make an order rejecting the application : Provided that in any case failing under clause (i) if the Controller is satisfied that the tenants default to pay or tender rent was not wilful, he may notwithstanding anything in Section 11, give the tenant a reasonable time not exceeding fifteen days, to pay or tender the rent due by him to the landlord upto the date of such payment or tender and on such payment or tender, the application shall be rejected.;

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