GOVERDHAN KACHWAWA Vs. MANGILAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No.2 in R.C.C. 804/1990, on the file of the III Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad, is the petitioner in this revision petition. That R.C.C. was filed by the petitioner and another, seeking eviction of the respondent-herein/tenant from the petition schedule premises on the ground that the respondent/tenant had committed willful default in payment of monthly rents for a particular period. Respondent/tenant filed I.A.355/94 in R.C.No.804/90 under Section 8 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) control Act 1960 (for short "the Act") to permit him to deposit a sum of Rs.4,800/- being the monthly rents payable for a period of one year in future, i.e. from April 1994 to March 1995, in advance. That petition was opposed by the petitioner/ landlord. The Rent Control Court dismissed that petition, holding that there is no provision in the Act which entitled a tenant to deposit the future monthly rents also and that the landlord has a right to oppose such a request made by the tenant/respondent-herein. Against that order of dismissal of I.A.355/94 filed by him, the ten ant/respondent herein filed appeal in R.A.498/1994 before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and the said appeal was allowed, holding that no prejudice would be caused to the landlord/petitioner-herein if the future monthly rents are deposited by the tenant/respondent herein, in advance. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is filed by the landlord/petitioner-herein.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner/ landlord mainly contends that, when there is no such specific provision in the Act which enables the tenant/respondent to deposit the future rents in advance, the lower appellate court ought not to have permitted the tenant/respondent to deposit the future rents also in advance.

(3.) The above contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner/landlord is without force. The main question to be decided in R.C.804/90 is-whether the respondent/tenant has committed wilful default in payment of monthly rents for a particular period alleged by the landlord/petitioner-herein. During the pendency of the abovesaid R.C.804/90, the respondent/tenant wanted to deposit the future rents in advance for a period of one year, to avoid the possibility of committing any future default by him in payment of rents. The deposit of future rents also by the respondent, is to the advantage of the landlord/petitioner-herein and the same will in no way affect the decision of the Court that may be rendered in R.C.804/90. Further, the appellate Court has made it clear that the landlord/petitioner-herein can receive the rents deposited by the tenant/respondent without prejudice to his/their rights in R.C.No.804 of 1990. It is now well-settled that the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are applicable to the proceedings instituted under the Act. hi the circumstances even if there is no specific provision under the Act for depositing the future rents by a tenant, the Rent Control Courts have got power, under the provision of Section 151 CPC, to permit/direct a tenant to deposit the future rents also in advance.