G PEDDI REDDY Vs. P GOVINDA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is filed under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter, in short, called as 'the Act') by the revision petitioner/tenant, who was unsuccessful in both the Courts below. The respondent landlord filed R.C.CNo. 52 of 1984 on the file of the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Warangal in which the trial Court ordered eviction of the tenant. Aggrieved by the same the tenant filed R,C.A.No. 7 of 1992 on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge) at Warangal, which was dismissed by an order dated 6-4-1992 confirming the order of the Court of the first instance. The unsuccessful tenant aggrieved by the said order had preferred the present civil revision petition.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that he revision petitioner-tenant (for the purpose of convenience hereinafter called as 'the tenant') obtained the petition schedule premises for residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs. 70.00 in the year 1974 and the ...rent was enhanced to Rs. 200.00 from 1-8-1982. The tenant failed to pay the agreed rent. On the other hand he paid rents at the old rates upto 30-11-1982 and thus he fell due an amount of Rs. 520.00, being the difference in rent at Rs. 130.00 per month for the said period. From 1-12-1982, the tenant stopped payment of rent altogether. Though repeated demands were made by the landlord the tenant did not pay the agreed rent. On 16-4-1984, the landlord had issued a notice calling upon the tenant demanding payment of arrears of rent and also to vacate the premises and ultimately it was found that even by that time the tenant was due in a sum of Rs. 4,980.00 upto 31-3-1984. It was also pleaded that the petition schedule premises require extensive repairs which have to be carried out.

(3.) The tenant filed a counter denying all these allegations. The relationship of the landlord and tenant, no doubt, is admitted and the tenant had narrated as to how his conduct cannot be styled as a wilful default within the meaning of the Act. The defence of the tenant is that the suit premises is a old one without proper facilities and he approached the landlord for carrying on the repairs and With his permission Only he spent about Rs. 5,000 to 6,000.00 for its repairs. That is the reason why the contention of the landlord that the tenant has committed willful default is not correct. Further the tenant also contended that in view of the intimacy he was paying the rents once in three months, six months and once in a year and without any protest the landlord has been receiving the rents and now he cannot take advantage of this situation and contend that on the ground of wilful default he is liable to be evicted.