GANESHLAL Vs. NAJAMUNNISA BEGUM
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
Respondents 1 to 6 in these two revisions have filed a petition R.C.
115/1986 in the court of the Prl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad for eviction of
the tenant on the ground that the tenant had committed wilful default in
payment of rent. Five respondents were impleaded in that petition.
Respondents 1 and 2 are the heirs of the original tenant by name Shankar Lal.
Respondents 3 to 5 are the sub-tenants. The Rent Controller allowed the
petition holding that the landlords have established that the tenant committed
wilful default and ordered eviction. Against that an appeal R.A.No. 508/1988
was filed by the respondents 1 and 2 in R.C. 115/86 and respondent No. 4
therein before the appellate authority under the Rent Control Act i.e.,
Additional Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The appellate
authority had also agreed with the finding of the Rent Controller that the
tenant had committed wilful default and therefore dismissed the appeal.
C.R.P. 1611/91 is filed by the tenants whereas C.R.P. 176/91 is filed by one of
the sub-tenants, who was also appellant before the appellate authority.
(2.)Earlier to this revision the landlord had filed petition R.C. 59/80 in
the court of the Rent Controller for eviction of the tenant Shankarlal on the
ground that he had sub-let the premises without the consent of the landlord.
During the pendency of that petition the tenant died. Therefore, since the
premises in question is a non-residential premises and in view of the legal
position, which was prevailing then, the Rent Controller ordered eviction on
the ground that the heirs of the tenant cannot continue to occupy the non-
residential premises as tenant in view of the definition of 'tenant' under the
Rent Control Act. Against that the heirs of the tenant carried the matter in
appeal before the appellate authority, who held following the later decisions
that even the heirs of the tenant come within the definition of 'tenant' in
respect of non-residential premises and so they are entitled to continue as
tenants and allowed that appeal and also holding that there is no unauthorised
subletting. Against that R.A. 29/85 was filed which was dismissed and
against that order C.R.P. 271/86 was filed which was also dismissed.
(3.)Then the present petition RC. 115/86 was filed for eviction on the
ground of wilful default. The periods of defaults are given as below :
It may be noted from the above dates that the first period covers up to 30-4-
1985 and the subsequent periods of payments are only from 1-5-85 to 31-8-
85. As I have stated above both the Rent Controller as well as appellate
authority have found that there is wilful default committed by the tenant and
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.