T EASWARA RAO Vs. N E ANSARI DECD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE deceased respondent/landlord filed the petition in R.C.O.P. No. 83 of 1987 on the file of the learned Rent Controller/District Munsif, Ootacamund against the petitioner/tenant on the ground that the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent and for his occupation, and also for additional accommodation, with respect to the premises in question. That was resisted by the tenant by filing a counter. THE Rent Controller in the order dated 4.4.1989 ordered eviction on the ground that the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent and that the requirement of the landlord for additional accommodation is a bona fide one. On the basis of the abovesaid findings the Rent Controller ordered eviction. Aggrieved, the tenant filed appeal in R.C.A. No. 28 of 1989 on the file of the learned Appellate Authority/District Judge, THE Nilgiris at Ootacamund, who also concurred with the findings of the Rent Controller and confirmed the order of eviction and dismissed the appeal. Still aggrieved, the tenant has filed the above revision.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, the monthly rent was Rs.20 per month. According to the landlord, the tenant did not pay the rent for the period from 1.4.1986 to 30.9.1987.According to the tenant in the R.C.O.P., for the months of April and May, he paid the rent which was admitted by the landlord also. The Petitioner/tenant on the basis of Exs.B-1 and B-2 has come forward with the plea that he had paid the sum of Rs.80 towards four months rent. So, according to the tenant, the landlord received the rent for six months from 1.4.1986, and the balance amount was paid on the date of first hearing of the case, which was also admitted by the landlord in his evidence. On the basis of the abovesaid admitted facts, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the decisions in Krishna Mudaliar, v. Lakshmi Ammal , 1996 (2) L.W. 467 (S.C.), and in Abdul Hammed v. M. Sultan Abdul Kader , 1996 (2) L.W. 525, has submitted that the contention that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent cannot be sustained.

(3.) THE Apex Court in the decision in Krishna Mudaliar, v. Lakshmi Ammal , 1996 (2) L.W. 467 had dealt with the case where the landlord treated the tenant as a trespasser and filed a suit for ejectment, but it was held that he was only the tenant. THEreafter he was served with notice in 1981 demanding arrears of rent for the period from March 1977 to August 1981. In the reply notice the tenant explained the delay in payment of rent saying that he could not pay the rent because the respondent therein never accepted him as a tenant and refused to receive the same. On the basis of the said dispute between the parties, the Apex Court has come to the conclusion that the non-payment of rent cannot be construed as wilful and then applied the proviso to section 10(2)(i) of the Act to reject the petition for eviction accepting the case of the appellant/tenant that he has paid the rent immediately after filing of the ejectment-application. THE Apex Court did not decide the case only on the basis of the deposit of the amount immediately after filing of the application. THE Apex Court has found that the tenant has not committed any wilful default, only on the basis of the earlier conduct of the landlord.