BALAJI SINGH Vs. V NAGAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is the petitioner before me. An eviction petition was filed against him by the landlord for eviction of the suit premises on two grounds, namely, that the tenant is a wilful defaulter as he failed to pay the rent for the months of March, April and May 1972 which was fixed at Rs. 250/- per mensem. The second ground for eviction was that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord. The plea of the tenant was that the rent was not Rs. 250/- per month but only Rs. 40/- per month. He also denied the bona fides of the landlord for personal occupation.

(2.) The Rent Controller, who is the primary authority under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", enquired into the matter and found that the rent of Rs. 250/- per month was not paid by the tenant for the months of March, April and May 1972; and as such he was a wilful defaulter. So far as the question of bona fides are concerned, that was also accepted by the Rent Controller. The Appellate authority confirmed both the findings of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant and ordered eviction. Hence this revision.

(3.) Mr. Y.G. Krishhamurthy, the learned advocate for the petitioner-tenant, has raised the following contentions. His first contention is that both the lower Courts were incorrect in giving a finding that the rent of the suit premises was Rs. 250/- per month. Submits the learned Advocate that Exs. A-1 and A-2 are the two account books. Ex. A-1 is a book maintained by the tenant and Ex. A-2 maintained by the landlordand these account books were submitted in which the conditions of lease were incorporated. Therefore, that would amount to a lease and since that lease deed has not been registered, they were not admissible in evidence. The second contention is that, before the filing of the eviction petition, there was a partition in the family of the landlord and the suit property fell to the share of P.W. 2 who is one of the sons; and therefore having regard to the provisions of Section 10 sub-section (8) of the Act, the father who had initially filed the eviction petition was not entitled to do so as he had not been given a written permission by the principal viz., P.W. 2 and therefore the eviction petition itself was not maintainable. So far as the third contention regarding the bona fide requirement of the landlord is concerned, Mr. Krishnamurthy does not seriously challenge in his argument.