CHIKKAM SATYANARAYANA Vs. SAMISETTI SUBBA RAO
LAWS(APH)-1992-1-30
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on January 21,1992

CHIKKAM SATYANARAYANA Appellant
VERSUS
SAMISETTI SUBBA RAO Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

VINUKONDA VENKATA RAMANA VS. MOOTHA VENKATESWARA RAO [LAWS(APH)-2001-8-103] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA VARA PRASAD V V VS. S SURYA RAO [LAWS(APH)-1996-9-145] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This revision is filed by the tenant against the Judgment in R.C.A.No. 1 of 1988 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge Kakinada. The present Respondent land-lord filed a petition for eviction on two grounds; (1) wilful default in payment of rents and 2 the prmises occupied by the tenant is required for purposes of demolition and constructing bath room and latrine for the house of the land-lord which is situated just behind the schedule premises. The land-lord claimed that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent from 1st January, 1982 to October, 1982 and that the agreed rent between the parties is Rs.150/- per month. The rent controller came to the conclusion that the agreed rent between the parties is Rs.70/- per month and that no default was committed and the rent has been paid regularly and for the rent of October, 1982, when it was sent by money-order, it was refused by the land-lord and hence the land-lord is not entitled to eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. The Rent Controller also came to the conclusion that the requirement of the schedule premises for purposes of demolishing and construction of the bath room and latrine for the use of the land-lord is not a genuine and bonafide requirement and if he was particular to construct a bath room and latrine, he could have done so in the vacant space behind the schedule premises and in front of the land-lord's HOuse. In that view of the matter, the court came to the conclusion that the petitioner filed the R.C.C. 7 of 1985 with an oblique motive to somehow get the tenant evicted and accordingly, it dismissed the petition.
(2.)In the appeal by the land-lord, RCA 1 of 1988, the appellate court came to the conclusion that the land-lord failed to prove that he needs the premises of the tenant in order to construct a bath room and latrine and that there is no bona fide requirement of the premises. The Court affirmed the finding of the rent controller. On the question of wilful default in payment of rent, the court found that the agreed rent between the parties is Rs.70/- per month and not Rs.150/- per month as pleaded by the land-lord and there is no proof of default being committed by the tenant for the rent due for January, 1982 to October, 1982. The court came to the conclusion that the rent of October, 1982 was sent by money-order and the land-lord refused to receive the money-order. Subsequently the tenant gave notice to the land-lord to specify the bank in which the rents should be deposited. The land-lord refused to give a reply and subsequently when O.S.No. 857 of 1982 was filed for recovery of the rents, the petitioner deposited the rents into the court. The court found fault with the tenant for having not availed the provisions of Section 8 of the Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and he availed till 4-8-1982 to deposit the rents from November, 1982, to June, 1983, and that this would amount to committing wilful default. The court found fault with the tenant for not invoking the aid of Section-8 of the Act ad for not offering any explanation for the non-payment of rents for six months. On this ground of wilful default in payment of rent for November, 1982 to June, 1985, the court allowed the appeal and ordered eviction granting two months time to vacate the premises.
(3.)In this revision, Sri P. Rajagopal Rao, appearing for the tenant-revision petitioner, contends that the non-avialment of Section of the Act by the tenant cannot be taken as a factor against the tenant. The appellate court failed to notice that there is no default in payment of rent upto October, 1982, as pleaded by the land-lord. The default said to be established as per the appellate court relates to the subsequent period, namely November, 1982, to June, 1983. For the subsequent default, no eviction can be ordered unless the parties take the proceedings as per section of the of the Act. In this case, the land-lord never filed any petition for striking off the defence of the tenant for no.n-payment of subsequent rents and hence the order of eviction is bad.
;


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