BANSILAL Vs. MOHMOOD AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition arises out of a Judgment and order dated 12-2-1996 passed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.A.No. 242 of 1991 whereby and whereunder the learned Judge allowed an appeal preferred by the respondents herein arising out of a Judgment dated 21-2-1991 passed by the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad in R.C.No. 296 of 1987 dismissing an application filed by the respondent under Section 10 (2) (i) and 2 (a) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) Respondent-landlord filed the eviction petition against the petitioner herein on the ground that the petitioner committed wilful default in payment of rent payable for the months of January and February, 1985. The petitioner tendered Rs, 125/- by way of money order in the month of August, 1985 which was refused. The petitioner again sent Rs. 250/- by money order for two months in the first week of September, 1985 which was also refused by the respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner filed R.C.No. 414 of 1985 and has been depositing the rents in the Court of the Rent Controller to the credit of the said R.C. As on the date of filing the eviction petition, the petitioner was to pay an amount of Rs. 4,700/- towards arrears of rent from January, 1985 to February, 1987. It was alleged that the petitioner had sublet the premises to his brother without the consent of the landlord. According to the landlord, the monthly rent was Rs. 200/- per month whereas according to the petitioner the same was Rs.125/- per month.

(3.) The Principal Rent Controller before whom the eviction petition was, filed formulated the following points for consideration: (1) Whether the rent of the premises is Rs.200/- as alleged by the petitioner? (2) Whether the respondent had committed wilful default in payment of rents from January, 1985 till the date of filing of eviction petition, if so, the respondent is liable for eviction? (3) Whether the respondent sublet the premises to one Ganesh if so, the respondent is liable for eviction?