NANDLAL GOVINDRAM GUNWANI Vs. ASHOK BALRAM BEDEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached to this Court by filing this Civil Revision Application in view of the provisions of section 26 of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act of 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act, for short) challenging the judgment delivered by the Rent Controller, Aurangabad in Case No. 81/rc/cr/15 decided on 20-6-1989 which is confirmed in Rent Appeal No. 18 of 1989 decided by the District Judge, Aurangabad, by the judgment dated 4-6-1990, as a result of which the petitioner has been directed to deliver the possession of ground floor of the house C. T. S. No. 4560 equal to Municipal No. 2-10-26 (old) new Municipal No. 4-11-18, situated in Mohalla Kumbharwada in Aurangabad city. The respondent had filed an application under section 15 of the said Act on various grounds. However, the Rent Controller directed the petitioner to deliver the possession of the suit premises as the petitioner was found a defaulter, as provided under section 15 (2) (i) of the said Act. The District Judge, who decided the Rent Appeal No. 18 of 1989 on 4-6-1990 has also found the petitioner as a defaulter and confirmed the finding and order of the Rent Controller. Therefore, the order passed against the petitioner is only on account of default being committed by him in payment of rent. Rest of the grounds even though raised in initial proceeding for getting possession, have been rejected by both the authorities below and as the same have not been challenged by the respondent by appropriate proceeding they are not open for consideration before this Court. Therefore, the only question which this Court is required to consider is whether the findings recorded by the courts below holding that the petitioner is defaulter in view of the provisions of section 15 (2) (i) of the said Act are justified or not?

(2.) THE petitioner is a tenant inducted in the premises on monthly rent of Rs. 325/- per month in the year 1971. Even though the agreement of tenancy was entered in between the brother of the present respondent namely Dilip Bedekar and the petitioner, however, the rent was being collected by any member of the family and the petitioner used to pay the rent to any member of the joint family of said Dilip Bedekar. By an agreement dated 9-7-1973 executed in between the members of the family of Dilip Bedekar, namely his mother Yamunabai and three brothers namely, (i) Dilip (ii) Kishore and (iii) Ashok, it was agreed that the rent is to be collected or paid to Yamunabai and accordingly the petitioner was directed to pay the rent. It also appears, as a result of letter dated 11-7-1973 that the father of the respondent was directed to receive the rent and accordingly the same was conveyed to the petitioner. It appears that in the year 1977, the property was entered in the name of the respondent and his brother Kishore as per the letter given by their brother Dilip and thereafter it is the case of the present respondent that since 1-2-1977 onwards, the rent has not been paid by the tenant petitioner. Therefore, proceeding was instituted before the Rent Controller in the year 1981. It is to be noted that prior to this institution of the proceeding for eviction, Regular Civil Suit Nos. 521 of 1977, 804 of 1978, 149 of 1979, 288 of 1979, 468 of 1979 and 700 of 1980 were filed for recovery of the rent amount by the respondent and the day on which the Rent Controller decided the matter i. e. on 20-6-1989, Regular Civil Suit No. 700 of 1980 was pending. In all these suits, the decree for rent was passed as claimed in the said suits. Apart from the aforesaid six suits, of which the numbers have been quoted above, it is an admitted position that in all 10 suits were instituted for recovery of the rent. It is also an admitted position that after the decrees were passed in those suits, the amount was tendered by the present petitioner. The notice reply dated 12-1-1984 issued by the respondent shows that the respondent accepted the amount of Rs. 13, 286/- tendered by Cheque No. 004811 dated 28th December, 1983 under protest and appropriated that amount as against the rent for the period 1-12-1981 to 31-12-1983, decree passed in R. C. S. No. 728 of 1981 dated 14-9-1983, the suit claim in R. C. S. No. 700 of 1980 and R. C. S. No. 182 of 1982 and so also the cost of the M. R. J. I 100 of 1980. This is being pointed out for the purpose that even though the petitioner claimed that he has paid the amount lateron while pending the dispute before the District Court and/or this Court, they were all subsequent payments. But this Court is required to look into whether the petitioner is a defaulter as per the provisions of section 15 (2) (i) of the said Act, on the date of the application before the Rent Controller. These facts will point out, therefore, that the rent from 2-2-1977 onwards till the date of filing of the application before the Rent Controller was not paid by the petitioner and that various civil proceedings as stated above were decided and pending for recovery of the said amount of rent.

(3.) THE defence of the petitioner is that;