MADANA GOPALA KRISHANA Vs. NARNI GNASA VEERABHADRASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a C.R.P. filed by the tenants of a building situate in Eluru town R.C.C. No. 4/89 was filed by the landlords for eviction of the tenants. Pending the R.C.C. a petition was filed under Section 11(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") seeking for an order to stop all further proceedings and to direct the tenants to put the landlords in possession of the premises. This petition was filed on the ground that the tenants (petitioners herein) had not paid the rent from 1.3.1988 onwards. That means by the date of filing the R.C.C., the tenants committed default in payment of rent due for 10 months commencing from 1.3.1988 to 31.12.1988. Even subsequent to the filing of the petition, the tenants did not pay the rents for the months of January, February and March, 1989. Hence the petition was filed under Section 11(4) of the Act, on 10.4.1989. The landlords claim that the rent for the premises is Rs. 200/- per month.

(2.) THE petitioners-tenants, in their counter filed on 11.7.89, contended that the rent for the premises was only Rs. 50/- per month and that the landlords refused to receive the rent when they offered to pay the same in the month of December, 1988. The learned Rent Controller, Eluru held that the rent for the premises is Rs. 200/- but not Rs. 50/- as claimed by the tenants. The petition was allowed by the Rent Controller and time was granted for deposit of rent by 1.2.90. The time was extended till 9.3.1990. Meanwhile, the petitioners filed appeal and, by an order dated 5.3.90 in I.A. 347/90, stay of operation of the order in RCC 4/89 was granted. The Subordinate Judge, Eluru (Rent Control Appellate Authority) held that even the admitted rent of Rs. 50/- was not paid from December, 1988 to July 1989 i.e. after filing of the petition. The appellate authority proceeded on the footing that the document Ex. A-2 being a disputed one, that need not be taken into account at that stage and therefore concluded that the tenants should have deposited the admitted rent of Rs. 50/- per month. The appellate Court further observed that the tenants ought to have deposited the arrears of rent before filing the appeal and the appeal was not paid. While dismissing the appeal, the Appellate Court directed that the tenants have to put the landlords in possession of the building within one month from the date of the order.

(3.) IN G. Murali Krishna v. P. Mahalakshmi, 1992 (3) ALT 316 at 320 my learned brother Ranga Reddy, J. while holding that it is open to the landlord to rely upon the subsequent defaults committed by the tenants in his application filed for eviction on the ground of wilful default, made the following pertinent observations :