BHAGWANRAO BABURAO GOUNDER Vs. POONAMCHAND RAMNARAYAN PORWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is admittedly a tenant of suit premises situated at Hiralal Chowk, Deed. He is paying rent for the suit premises at the rate of Rs. 30 per month. The respondent Poonamchand Ramnarayan Porwal filed an application on July 12, 1971 against the petitioner for eviction from the suit premises, on the grounds of wilful default and requirement of possession for repairs and reconstruction. Both the Courts below held that the respondent proved both the grounds mentioned above and passed an order of eviction against the petitioner. The learned District Judge, Beed, by judgment and order dated December 5, 1980, in Rent Appeal No. 10 of 1979, confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. It is that order of the District Judge challenged in this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Mr. S. C. Bora, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the peti- tioner, contended that the Courts below misdirected and misconceived the provisions of the Hyderabad Rent Act. Mr. Bora pointed out that the pleadings are very vague and no specific date of default has been mentioned either in the notice or in the pleadings in the petition filed by the landlord. From the pleadings it emerges that the tenant was in arrears of rent for the month of April 1970 or 1971, as the case may be. If the tenant was in default for a period of one month, both the courts could not have passed an order of eviction on the ground of default. In view of the Hyderabad Rent Act, mere default by the tenant in payment of rent cannot be a ground for eviction, but a wilful default in payment of rent is a ground for an order of eviction.

(3.) Section 15 (2) (i) lays down that on an application by a landlord for eviction of his tenant the Rent Controller shall make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the premises, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the applica- tion, only if lie is satisfied "that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due by him in respect of the house, within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreeme1.1 of tenancy with his landlord or in the absence of any such agreement by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable". This clause to section 15 lays down that the liability to pay by the tenant to the landlord is within a specified time as may be fixed. The proviso to sub-section (2) further lays down that in any case falling under clause (i) if the Controller is satisfied that the tenant's default to pay or tender rent was not wilful he may, before making an order as aforesaid, give the tenant a reasonable time, not exceeding 15 days to pay or tender the rent to the landlord upto the date of such payment or tender. If there is no wilful default, the Controller is bound in law to give a tenant an opportunity to pay the rent, and if the Court comes to the conclusion that the default of payment of rent was wilful, it will pass an order of eviction.