N D THANDANI Vs. ARNAVAZ RUSTOM PRINTER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is in appeal, by special leave, feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court holding the tenant liable to be evicted from the suit premises on the ground available to the landlord-respondents under S. 10(2)(i) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter the Act, for short). The said provision entitles a landlord to evict the tenant on the latters failure to pay or tender the rent within the specified number of days on its becoming due. The proviso appended to sub-section (2) provides for the Controller allowing the tenant a reasonable period of time not exceeding fifteen days to pay or tender the rent due by him to the landlord calculated up to the date of such payment or tender, and upon such payment or tender being made the prayer for eviction may be refused if the Controller is satisfied that the tenants default to pay or tender the rent was not wilful. It is conceded at the Bar that the tenant shall incur the liability for eviction only on a finding arrived at by the Controller of wilful default on the part of the tenant.

(2.) This litigation has a history of around thirty years broken into three rounds of litigation, each time the landlord having sought for the eviction of the tenant on the ground of wilful default and twice the tenant having successfully escaped the threat of eviction. In the third round he is struck by the findings arrived at and recorded in very many details by the learned Rent Controller in his order dated August 25, 1993, which has been upheld by the High Court in revision.

(3.) In an earlier round of litigation the tenant had come up to this Court and this Court had, vide its order dated 12-1-1980, directed him to deposit the then arrears within a period of two months and continuously deposit the rent falling due thereafter, month by month, by the 10th day of every month, with the Rent Controller. Complaining of the default once again having been committed by the tenant, the landlords in the first instance served through their counsel a notice dated 28-10-1981 on the tenant, calling upon him to furnish details of the rent deposited by him with the Controller. The tenant through his advocate gave a reply that all the arrears of rent were cleared. However, no particulars as to challans by which the rent was deposited with the Controller were furnished. On 12-11-1981, the landlord moved an application before the Controller for withdrawing the amount deposited by the tenant, and his application was returned with an endorsement by the office of the Controller that an amount of Rs. 216.25 paise only was lying deposited. In a communication dated 12-11-1981, the landlord was informed by the tenant that there were arrears to the tune of Rs. 6,300/- which were all deposited in one go. Here again, the details of challans were not furnished and in fact the Controller also gave credit for the amount of deposit made by tenant on the basis of a letter of the State Bank of Hyderabad certifying the amount of deposit. In the proceedings initiated by the landlord seeking eviction of the tenant under S. 10(2)(i) of the Act, the plea taken by the tenant was that the challans, evidencing the deposit of rent with the bank, were sent to the Controller from time to time through registered post. He made a statement to that effect on 21-8-1989 when he was examined in the Court of Controller. On a prayer made by the landlord, 4 years after the date of the said statement, the tenant was recalled for further cross-examination and on 13-7-1993 he made available the challan showing deposit of Rs. 6,300/- and other challans also which he had kept with himself until then. Even these challans, when scrutinized, did not support the plea of the tenant that the entire amount in arrears up to date had been cleared.