MOHAMMED SHAMSUDDIN Vs. AHMED HAFEEZUDDIN FAROOQU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Civil Revision Petition is directed against an order made in R.A. No. 690/94 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad.

(2.) THE unsuccessful tenant is the Revision Petitioner. The respondent as General Power of Attorney holder filed the R.C. against the Revision Petitioner for eviction from the demised premises bearing No. 12 -2 -830/C at Muradnagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents. The respondent also filed an application I.A. No. 284/93 under Section 11(1) and (4) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, hereinafter in short called as "Act" alleging that the Revision Petitioner was due the arrears of rent of Rs.14,700/ - and that the original rent was Rs.550/ - per month which was enhanced to Rs.850/ - on 1 -7 -1991 and that the Revision Petitioner -tenant had failed to pay the agreed rent from August 1991 inspite of repeated demands and thus he became due to a tune of Rs.19,300/ - and the enhanced amount was besides Rs.900/ - with water charges and thus he became due to a tune of Rs.21,700/ - and a sum of Rs.800/ - was paid on 5 -3 -1993 and there is a balance of Rs.20,900/ - and the tenant had opposed the said petition raising several contentions and the learned Rent Controller had made an order under Section 11(1) of the Act and consequently under Section 11(4) of the Act and aggrieved by the same the tenant preferred R.A. No. 258/94 and aggrieved by the order made in the main R.C. No. 566/92 the tenant preferred R.A. No. 640/94. The appellate authority by an order dated 31 -12 -1996 had dismissed both the R.As. by a common order and aggrieved by the same as against the order in R.A. No. 258/94 the tenant had preferred C.R.P. No. 487/97, which was dismissed at the stage of admission itself by the order dated 1 -4 -1997. As against the order made in R.A. No. 690/94, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the tenant.

(3.) SRI Basith Ali Yavar, the learned counsel representing the tenant had submitted that though there is some dispute relating to the quantum of rent, no finding had been recorded relating to the quantum of rent and an order was made under Section. 11(4) of the Act on 25 -4 -1994 and the entire arrears were deposited on 6 -6 -1994 and in the light of the payment of entire arrears, now an opportunity can be given to the tenant to contest the matter on merits. The learned counsel also had submitted that Section 11(4) of the Act is not mandatory, but only directory and that the word "shall" was construed to be only as directory and the learned counsel had placed reliance on Dr. VIJAYA KUMARI Vs. SATYA PRAKASH AGARWAL 1988(1) ALT 21 . The learned counsel further submitted that though there is some delay, the Court can condone the delay inasmuch as discretion is given to the Court to condone such delay, if any and opportunity can be given to the tenant in the facts and circumstances of the case.