A SALEEM Vs. S VASANTAKUMARI
LAWS(APH)-1992-12-16
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on December 24,1992

A SALEEM Appellant
VERSUS
S VASANTAKUMARI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)BOTH the Courts below concurrently found that there is wilful default in payment of rent to the respondent-landlady. Ex. A-4, certified copy of the reply notice dt. 5-4-83 belies the allegation of the petitioner-tenant that his original landlord did not intimate to him about the sale of the Petition schedule premises to the respondent-landlady. The allegation that the petitioner-tenant could not pay the rent either to the original owner or to the respondent-landlady as he could not know-whether the respondent-landlady actually purchased the petition schedule premises or not, is false as rightly observed by the Courts below. Now the contention that has been raised is that originally a suit, O. S. No. 342 of 1983 has been filed by the respondent-landlady treating the Petitioner-tenant as trespasser and reserving her right for damages and after the verdict of the Supreme Court, eviction petition has been filed and the arrears of rent or damages during that period cannot be termed as wilful default. Simply because a suit has been filed it does not mean that the petitioner-tenant need not pay the rent or make any attempt to pay the amount. In CRP Nos. 609 and 610 of 1989 dt. 16-2-90 it has been held that refusal of landlady to received rent after notice of termination of tenancy does not amount to default in payment of rent by the tenant during the pendancy of the suit. In this case no attempt has been made by the pendency of the suit. In this case no attempt has been made by the petitioner-tenant at least to send the rent by money order or to deposit the same in any other form that is available to him. So not paying the rent and not making any attempt to pay the rent, the petitioner-tenant now cannot be permitted to say that non-payment of the rent during the pendency of the civil suit amounts to only defau It but not wilful default. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings given by the Courts below. The revision petition is therefore dismissed. No costs.
(2.)TIME for eviction of the petitioner-tenant is however granted till 1-5-93 on the condition of his paying rents regularly and surrendering the possession of the demised premises to the respondent-landlady on or before 1-5-93.
;


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