SHANKARLAL LOYA Vs. RAMDEV RATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a tenant in respect of mulgi, bearing No.15-7-530, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. It was owned by the deceased-1st respondent. R.C.No.308 of 2005 was filed in the Court of II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, by the 1st respondent, against the petitioner, for eviction from the schedule premises, pleading the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. During the pendency of the R.C., he died. Respondents 2 to 6, his legal representatives, are brought on record. The 7th respondent became the owner of the premises, by virtue of a gift settlement deed, dated 11.01.2008. He filed I.A.No.303 of 2009, with a prayer to permit him to add paragraph 2(a) to the petition, pleading the ground of wilful default, subsequent to the transfer in his favour. The application was opposed by the petitioner. It was pleaded that, before the 7th respondent came to be impleaded, not only the recording of evidence is concluded, but also the arguments were heard, and the I.A., was filed at a belated stage. It was further stated that the amendment is not permissible in law. The learned Rent Controller allowed the I.A., through order, dated 10.06.2010. The same is challenged in this revision.

(2.) Sri R.A.Achuthanand, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the I.A., is untenable in law, and if there existed any default in payment of rent, subsequent to the filing of the R.C., the only course open for the respondents was to file an application under Section 11 (4) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act'). He places reliance upon the judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in Vinukonda Venkata Ramana v. Mootha Venkateswara Rao1.

(3.) Sri Takur Singth, learned counsel for the 7th respondent, on the other hand, submits that, it is always permissible to plead subsequent events, in a petition filed under Section 10 of the Act, and that the default committed during the pendency of the proceedings, can also be treated as one of the grounds for eviction. He contends that an application under Section 11 of the Act, has already been filed, and still the petitioner committed default in payment of the rent. He submits that filing of an application under Section 11(4) of the Act, is one of the options and is not a step, to the exclusion of a plea of eviction, on the ground of wilful default.