SOKALCHAND BABULAL Vs. AKULA VENKATA RAJAGOPALA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision petition arises under Andhra Pradesh Building s (Lease, Rent, and Eviction) Control Act, and the petitioner is the tenant. The landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant or, two grounds viz. wilful default in the paymert of rent and bona fide requirement of the premises. The averments in support of the petition are that the tenant being a monthly tenant on a rent of Rs, 150/ payable by 1st of every month failed to pay rents from 1-7-1973 to 31-1-1974 and the total areare is Rs 1060/-. The Landlord originally belonged to Vijayawada and did business till 1966 and intends to set up a departmental tores in the petition schedule premises and made all preparations to start the business and the landlord is not in possession of any other non-resi-dential building. This petition is resisted by the tenant on the ground hat the taxes for the building amounting to Rs. 171-50 were paid on 20-6 1973 and Rs.171-50 on 7-11-1978 and as the petitioner did not came" as usual to collect the rent, the balance of Rs, 857/- was sent by draft on 23-3-1974 and the landlord refused to receive the same and immediately after the receipt of the noiice from the court, the rent was "ted on 30-3-1974. It is also averred that the claim for personal occupation by the petitioner landlord is not bona fide. The Rent Controller decided both the issues in favour of the landlord and directed eviction On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge confirmed the order of the Rent Controller upholding the findings on both the issues.

(2.) The learned counsel for the pstitioner tenant contended that there is a practice of landlord going over Vijayawade and collecting the rent and non-paymant of rent for a short priod as a result of deviation of practice by the landlord does not amount to wilful default, in so far as bona fide requirement is concerned, the landlord did not have sufficient finances and the premises in question is not sufficient for the proposed departmental stores as the shop and adjoining shop on the rear side are necessary for the business as stated in the petition by the landlord. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that there was no agree- ment for payment of rent at irregular intervals and the practice set up by the tenant is nat established and bonafida requirement is fully established and tha concurrent findings should not be interfered with.

(3.) The concept of wilful default arising for decision time and again may be briefly touched upon The Supreme Court in S P. Deshmukh vs Shah Nihal Chand (1) A I. R. 1977 S.C. 1985 heid that the obligation to pay the rent from month to month is subject to a contract so the contrary and this contract need not be necessarily set out in a formal document, but can be spelt out from the conduct of the parties. In Vasudeva V. Misra Bai (2) 1973 (2) APLJ. 428 the Division Bench of this Court held that the wilful default is a matter that has to be investigated and ascertained from the conduct of the tenant who is obligated to pay rent and it is for the tenant to establish that he is prevented from discharging the obligation of paying or tendering the rent ir Jnormal course and the agreement to pay rent at irregular intervais or otherwise has to be proved by she tenant to show that the default Is not wilful one. The expression "wilful" is always associated with mental attitude and make up. The default simpli. citer cannot be equated to wilful default, Wilful default cannotes deliberate avoidance of payment of or wanton withholding of rent. The Infraction of the tenant has to be discerned from direct or indirect evidence or conduct of the tenant and aliied facts and circumstances. The persistent irregularity in payment of rent may amount to wilful default. The deviation from the obligation to pay rent from month to month without any notice or without consent either explicit or implied from the landlord and insisting on the same amounts to wilful default. It may not be possible to predicate the precise connotation or amplitude of wilful default and it has to be inferred from facts and circumstances of each case.