KOTALWAR ANDCO Vs. NAGELLA DURGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's revision petition against an order for his eviction. It purports to be filed under section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Bindings (Lease Rent and Eviction Control) Act (XV of 1960), but admittedly the correct provision of law it section 26 of the Hyderabad House, (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act (XX of 1954,) hereinafter called "the Hyderabad Act."

(2.) The respondent applied on 7-1-1960 to the Rent Controller under Section 15 of the Hyderabad Act for the eviction of the petitioner on two grounds. The first was default in the payment of rent by the petitioner for November and December, 1959. The second was that the respondent required the malgi or non-residential house for his own use The Rent Controller held that the second ground was not proved and ordered eviction on the first ground. On the appeal by the petitioner to the Chief Judge of the City Small Causes court, the first ground was also negatived as the learned Cheif Judge found that the agreement between the parties was that one petitioner should pay the rent annually at the time of Deepavali, and not monthly. However, the learned Chief Judge took note of the petitioner's default in paying the rent for the year ending Deepavali, 1961 which occurred during the pendency of the appeal and which the respondent brought to his notice by an application under Section 11 (4) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act (XV of 1960). Applying the decision of this Court in A. K. Shah v. Annnapurnamma , he held that he could take note of the subsequent event and dismissed the appeal. It is common ground that as the respondent filed the application for eviction on 7-1-1960, prior to the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act (XV of 1960) coming into force, the rights of the parties are governed only by the provisions of the Hyderabad Act-Shafeeq v. Mohammad Begum.

(3.) Sri K. Ramachandra Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that there is no provision in the Hyderabad Act similar to Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Act (XV of 1960), which provides for payment or deposit and for default in the payment of rent during the pendency of the proceedings for eviction, and that, once the learned Chief Judge found that the grounds for eviction originally urged were not made out, he ought to have dismissed the respondent's petition for eviction. It will be convenient at this stage to read the portion of section 15 of the Act which deals with eviction for default in the payment of rent and which is in the following terms :