YOUSUFIDDIN Vs. FATIMA BI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is filed by the landlord against a judgment of the appellate authority allowing the appeal of the tenant and dismissing the eviction petition filed against the tenant-respondent. It appears that originally R, C. 195/51 was filed seeking eviction of the tenant. That application was., however, withdrawn and another application R. C, 629/51 was filed. It is out of this R. C. that the present Revision Petition arises. It also appears that subsequently two more eviction petitions were filed, one being R, C. "543/52 and the other being R, C. 27/53. They were not, however, subsequently pressed in view of the crder of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. I have, therefore, before me only R. C. 629/51. This petition was filed by the landlord only on two grounds: It was firstly alleged that the tenant is a wilful defaulter and secondly that he was responsible for the collapse of a portion of the house resulting in damages to the landlord. The petition was resisted by the tenant denying the allegations made against him. His contention was that he waff always ready and willing to pay the rent but the landlord was not carrying out the necessary repairs of the houge. Consequently, he had to carry on his furniture business in the old dilapidated building, resulting in loss to him. He however, admitted that on the date when the petition was filed, an amount of Rs. 1613-13-6 was due. He stated that, out of this amount, after due notice to the landlord, he had spent Rs. 581-13-6 for carrying out the necessary repairs which were not carried out by the landlord. After deducting that amount he was willing to deposit the balance of. Rs. 1032/-in the Court. He denied that he was responsible for the demolition of the house. He disputed the allegation that he was a wilful defaulter.

(2.) Upon these pleadings, the Rent Controller, after making proper enquiry held that the tenant was a wilful defaulter and therefore directed eviction of the tenant. The tenant dissatisfied with that order preferred an appeal. His appeal was allowed. It was found by the appellate authority that the tenant was not a wilful defaulter and that he was always ready and willing to pay the balance of the amount and that he paid the same in the Court which was accepted by the landlord of course without prejudice to his contention. He also held that the amount of expenditure which the tenant had incurred for carrying out the repairs of the house, he was entitled to withhold and deduct the same. The Petition for eviction, therefore, was dismissed. It is this view of the appellate authority that is now challenged in this Revision Petition. The first contention of Sri D. Narasaraju, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petition for eviction was filed under the Hyderabad Rent Controller Order of 1353 Fasli. That order having been lapsed in September . 1946 the petition was tried under the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction & Lease) Control Act 1954 (hereinafter called the Act) The appellate authority in his submission was wrong in allowing the tenant to deposit the amount of the arrears of rent under the provision of the order which had lapsed. The petition of the landlord could not have been dismissed on that ground, because there is no such provision in the Act. It was secondly contended by him that the tenant has been guilty of default even subsequent to the tiling ot the petition. Assuming that the provisions of the Order of 1353 Fasli governs the proceeding, he contends, even then as the tenant had committed default for subsequent periods, his eviction ought to have been directed.

(3.) In order to appreciate the merits of these contentions, it is necessary to refer to a few provisions of the Rent Control Order 1353 Fasli and the Act of 1954. Section 8 (2) of the Rent Control orer of 1353 Fasli enjoins that if the landlord desires the house in occupation of a tenant to be vacated, he must file a written application before the Controller. If after hearing the contentions of the parties, the Controller is satisfied that the tenant has not paid the rent for periods prior to the filing of the application and that he is not willing and ready to pay the same or the tenant is not willing and ready to pay the rent for a period subsequent to the application during which he intends to remain in possession, the Rent Controller, shall direct eviction of the tenant.