K VARALAKSHMAMMA Vs. M MASTHANRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these Civil Revision Petitions common question of Law is agitated and, therefore, they are disposed of by a common order. For the sake of convenience the petitioners are referred to as 'tenants' and the respondents as 'landlords'. The issues raised in these petitions are:

(2.) The landlords filed RCC Nos.ll to 14 of 1979 seeking eviction of the tenants on the ground of wilful default committed by the tenants in payment of rents from 15-3-1978 to 31-12-1978. The tenant-respondent in RCC No.14 of 1979 contested the matter on the ground that the sons of the insolvent had issued notice requiring him to pay the rents insofar as the tenament in his custody. Therefore, there was reasonable apprehension in his mind as to who is the landlord entitled to receive the rents. Hence, he filed an application under Section 9(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act) in RCC No.123 of 1978, seeking permission to deposit the rents in the Court. Likewise, the tenants-respondents inRCC Nos.13 and 12 of 1979 also filed similar applications - RCC Nos.124 of 1978 and 140 of 1978 - under Section 9(3) of the Act. Insofar as the tenant-respondent in RCC No. 11 of 1979 is concerned, the only ground which he urged in the counter-affidavit is that he paid the rents to the sons of the insolvent and, therefore, mere was no wilful default on his part. Both the Courts below - the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court - dealing with various contentions raised by the parties, held that there was wilful default on the part of the tenants-respondents in payment of rents and, therefore, directed eviction. Aggrieved by the verdicts of the Courts below the tenants filed the present civil revision petitions.

(3.) The first and foremost submission made by the learned Counsel for the tenants is on the question of maintainability of the rent control proceedings by the landlords before the original forum. The learned Counsel for the tenants contend that since there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties the rent control proceedings are not maintainable and the Courts below have erroneously directed eviction as if there exists landlord and tenant relationship between the parties. The second submission made by the learned Counsel for the tenants is that there was no wilful default on the part of the tenants in payment of rents to the alleged landlords since the tenants had taken recourse by filing applications under Section 9(3) of the Act, seeking permission to deposit the rents into the Court. It is only after the permission was granted by the Rent Controller, rents were deposited into the Court below. Therefore, the delay in deposit of rents cannot be treated as wilful default on the part of the tenants. As far as the tenant in C.R.P. No.216 of 1990 is concerned, the learned Counsel submits that, the rents for the period in question were paid to the sons of the insolvent and, therefore there was no wilful default on his part. I am not in agreement with the submission made by the learned Counsel for the tenant I in C.R.P. No.216 of 1990, since he failed to strengthen the said submission by I adducing any documentary evidence. Accordingly, I reject the submission made by the learned Counsel for the tenant in C.R.P. No.216 of 1990 and accept the findings of the Courts below in this behalf.