SASHIKANT JAMES PATOLE Vs. MOHAMMAD NAEEMUDDIN SIDIQUI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two courts below have passed an eviction order against the petitioner-tenant and therefore, the tenant has challenged the orders of courts below by filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) It is not disputed that respondent No.1 is the landlord and the petitioner is tenant. The monthly agreed rent is Rs. 75/- Respondent No. 1 originally started eviction proceeding against the petitioner on four grounds namely ;(1) default in payment of rent, (2) Bona fide requirement of the landlord, (3) Sub-letting by the tenant and (4) nuisance by the tenant. Petitioner resisted the petition and denied all the allegations made by the landlord. The trial Court held against the landlord on the points of bona fide requirement and sub-letting. But the trial Court held in favour of the landlord on the points that the petitioner-tenant was a wilful defaulter and that the petitioner-tenant was a nuisance and so he passed an eviction order against the tenant. After the tenant went in appeal the learned District Judge negatived the landlords contention that the tenant was a nuisance but he upheld the finding of the trial Court that the petitioner tenant was a wilful defaulter and so he dismissed the appeal. This has given rise to this writ petition.

(3.) The only question before me is whether the petitioner-tenant is a wilful defaulter. It is not disputed that the landlord had filed Suit No. 75/1975 for recovery of arrears of rent from 1-1-1974 upto the end of March, 1975. It is not further disputed that the landlord was required to file another Suit No. 283/77, for further arrears of rent and it is also not disputed that the landlord was required to file another Suit No. 86/1980 for further recording very of arrears of rent. It is not disputed that all these suits ended in decrees in favour of the landlord. Shri Kasliwal, appearing for respondent No. 1, made a statement that even today the petitioner is in arrears of rent for five months and the landlord has served the petitioner with a notice. As against this Shri Godhamgaonkar, appearing for the petitioner, urged that the petitioner was not a wilful defaulter at all. On a plain reading of section 15 of the Hyderabad House (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, it is clear that once the landlord establishes that the tenant has committed a default in the matter of payment of rent, the Rent Controller has to satisfy himself that the tenants default was not wilful. The proviso to Clause (vi) of sub-section (2) of section 15 of the Act runs as follows: