G MURALI KRISHNA Vs. P MAHALAKSHMI
LAWS(APH)-1992-9-28
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on September 05,1992

G.MURALI KRISHNA Appellant
VERSUS
P.MAHALAKSHMI Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

CH.SATYANARAYANA VS. S.SUBBA RAO [REFERRED TO]
PASUPULETI VENKATESWARLU VS. MOTOR AND GENERAL TRADERS [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH KUMAR VS. KESHO RAM [REFERRED TO]
RATHNAMAIAH CHETTY VS. RAMALINGAIAH CHETTY [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

GOPALA KRISHNA M VS. N G VEERABHADRASWAMY [LAWS(APH)-1993-10-28] [REFERRED TO]
D L SATYANARAYANA VS. K RADHA KRISHNAIAH [LAWS(APH)-1993-12-25] [REFERRED TO]
SONA OPTICS VS. SHYAM SUNDERBHARGAVA [LAWS(APH)-1996-9-6] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA VARA PRASAD V V VS. S SURYA RAO [LAWS(APH)-1996-9-145] [REFERRED TO]
GRAND BAZAR PARTNERSHIP FIRM VS. PADMASHALI SEVA SAMAJAM TRUST [LAWS(APH)-2000-7-54] [REFFERRED TO . (PARA 4) 3.]
MADANA GOPALA KRISHANA VS. NARNI GNASA VEERABHADRASWAMY [LAWS(APH)-1993-10-53] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This revision petition is filed by the tenants against the orders of the Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry in R.C.A. No.10 / 88 reversing the order of the Rent Controller in R.C.C. No.29/81 and directing eviction of the petitioners- tenants on the ground of wilful default.
(2.)The facts giving rise to the filing of this revision are in brief as follows: For purpose of convenience, I would refer to the parties as they are arrayed in the application for eviction. The petitioner in R.C.C. No.29 / 81 is the owner of a non-residential building bearing No.6/370 New D.No.9-21-10 situated at Rajahmundry. The respondents took the premises on a monthly rent of Rs.300/-. Rent was payable on first of every succeeding month. The tenancy commenced on 10-10-1980. The respondents committed wilful default in payment of rent for the months of January and February 1981. It is further contended that the respondents also failed to pay a sum of Rs.30/- from out of the rent payable from 18-10-1980 to 31-10-1980. Hence, she filed the petition for eviction.
(3.)The respondents filed a counter stating that the petitioner-landlady had a son by name Padmarao and that the premises under their occupation was owned by mem jointly and that they remitted the rents by inadvertence for the months of January and February, 1981 to Padmarao by way of Money Order and mat the same was returned as refused. Later on coming to know that the tents should be paid only to the petitioner-landlady they had paid the amount of Rs.600/- to the petitioner. Thus, according to them the rents were remitted in the name of Padmarao by mistake and that it can never be treated as wilful default. They denied the allegation that any amount is payable by them towards rent for the period from 18-10-1980 to 31-10-1981. The respondents thus contended that there is no cause of action and that the petition for eviction was filed against them with a malafide intention. The petitioner and her son were examined in support of the petition for eviction and on the other hand, the first respondenthas examined himself as R.W.I and marked Exs. B-1 to B-3. The learned Rent Controller on considering the evidence, came to the conclusion that the tenants have not committed any wilful default. In support of that conclusion he also relied on the fact that the landlady had received an amount of Rs.4,000/- towards deposit at the time of commencement of tenancy. For that reason also the tenants cannot be said to have committed wilful default. During the pendency of the petition, the tenants failed to pay rents from 1-7-1986 to 31-8-1987 i.e., for a period of 14 months. The petitioner-landlord therefore, filed an application under Sec.ll(4) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') stating that the tenants have committed wilful default in payment of rent for those fourteen months and requested to stop the proceedings. On filing that petition the tenants deposited the amount into Court. So, at the time of arguments it was contended that even this default of payment of rent, that took place subsequently during the pendency of the petition, should be taken into consideration while disposing of the application filed for eviction on the ground of wilful default. But, the learned Rent Controller found that subsequent events cannot be taken into consideration and inasmuch as he had already found that there was no wilful default, he dismissed the petition for eviction.
;


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