RAMARATNAMMA Vs. RANGA PANAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-landlady sought the eviction of her tenant-respondent from the suit premises (i) on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent, (ii) for converting the. residential premises into a non-residential building, (iii) for having committed acts of waste and (iv) for personal requirements. The tenant-respondent resisted the petition contending that the landlady was in the habit of collecting rents once in three or four months and the delay in payment of rent therefore was neither intentional nor deliberate: The amount was paid even before the filing of the eviction petition as soon as a notice was received. The building was acquired for using it as a godown and even before he had acquired it these was a primary school in the said premises He had not committed acts of waste and the pegs in the walls were made with the consent of the landlady. The bona fide requirements of the landlady were also denied. The Rent Controller on enquiry came to the conclusion that the default was wilful and the conversion of residential building into non-residential one was unauthorised. In regard to the acts of waste and the need for personal occupation by the landlady he gave a finding against her holding that fixing of pegs into the wall was not in any way detrimental to the building, In the matter of personal occupation also he held that there was no evidence to show that this averment was bona fide. However, as the tenant was found to be a wilful defaulter and was using the building for godown purposes eviction of the suit premises were ordered.

(2.) The tenant went in appeal to the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada in Miscellaneous A. S No. 2 of 1962. The learned Subordinate Judge having regard to the course of conduct between the parties was of the opinion that the finding of the Rent Controller about wilful default was not sustainable. In regard to the conversion of the premises from residential to non-residential one he differed from the Rent Controller, holding that even that finding could not be upheld. In regard to the other two objections he agreed with the Rent Controller and allowed the appeal setting aside the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. This revision petition is filed against the said order.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the appellate court was not justified in interfering with the finding of the Rent Controller on the question of wilful default. Admittedly, the respondent was a defaulter in payment of rent from 20-6-1960 to 29-4-1961. The explanation offerred by him is to the effect that in spite of a written lease agreement the landlady was in the habit of collecting rents once in two, three or four months and, therefore, he was not paying the rent regularly as per the terms of the agreement, The Rent Controller lias taken this aspect into consideration and found as a matter of fact that though some payments were made by the end of every month there were numerous instances when payments were made after two months, three months and even beyond this period. He has, however, disbelieved the respondent's version that at the instance of the landlady he was paying sums of Rs.100/-and 200/- at a time and the delay in payment was the result of this direction. He has also taken note of the fact that no sooner the demand was made the. entire arrears of rent were sent by money order. Notwithstanding this facr, his conclusion has been that the respondent was reckless and showed supine indifference in the payment of rent and. therefore, he was a wilful dafaulter. The learned Subordinate Judge on the same set of facts came to a different conclusion. He conceded that this was a case of default but refused to hold it as wilful. The only question, therefore, that falls for determination is whether the default was wilful.