RASHEEDULLA KHAN Vs. BHAGAWATHI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This CRP is filed against the order dated 12-7-1990 in RCA No. 10 of 1988 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Warangal. The facts leading to the filing of the present CRP are somewhat strange and appalling.

(2.) The revision petitioners are the tenants. They originally took the premises on rent from the husband of the first respondent and father of the second respondent one Mr. Dhanraj. Rents were being paid upto 1980 to late Dhanraj. After Dhanraj died, disputes arose and then RCC No. 45 of 1981 was filed. It is the claim of the present revision petitioners that as the landlords were refusing to receive rents, they filed RCC 31 of 1981 and that they went on depositing the rents. It was ultimately found by the Court that Mr. S.S. Parvaiz, the advocate who was appearing for the present revision petitioners, deposited only a few amounts and he appears to have misappropriated various amounts that were said to have been paid to him. Ultimately he admitted that he deposited only a few amounts in the Court and that he did not deposit all the amounts given to him by the tenants. He has been kind and generous enough to admit that he has misappropriated large amounts and that he deposited only a few amounts. This fact came to light only when the order in I.A.No. 1612 of 1981 filed by the landlords as a petition under Section 11 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') came to be pronounced on 14-8-1985. After this order was pronounced, I.A.No. 1432 of 1983, a petition under Section 11(4) of the Act came to be decided and the defence was struck off and an eviction order was passed on 28-8-1985. The appeal filed ended in dismissal and then the tenants have come forward with the present revision.

(3.) Mr. L. Narasimha Reddy, appearing for the tenant-revision petitioners contends that on the date of filing of I.A.No. 1432 of 1983 under Section 11 (4) of the Act, there was no order under Section 11 (1) and hence the defence cannot be struck out. He also contends that Section 11 (4) of the Act contemplates the Court going into the question whether the tenants could show sufficient cause to the contrary for their failure to deposit the rents. Hecontends that in this case, as the advocate was paid the amounts and as he swallowed the amounts and as he failed to deposit the rents as instructed by the tenant-clients, the blamable conduct of the advocate constitutes a sufficient cause for the failure of the tenants to deposit the amounts and hence the order of eviction invoking Section 11(4) of the'Act should be quashed. He places strong reliance upon Santosh Mehta vs. Om Parkash, Bimal Chand vs. Gopal Agarwal and M/s B.P. Khemka Pvt. Ltd. vs. Birendra Kumar.