JAMJETTI SATHYANARAYANA Vs. M. NARASIMLOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is the petitioner. The land -lord filed a petition for eviction under section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, herein after called the Act, for eviction on the ground that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent for the period from 1 -3 -76 to 31 -3 -77. According to the tenant, he had remitted the rent by money order for March, April, May, June, July and August, 1976, that the Money Orders were refused by the landlord and thereafter he stopped sending the rent as no useful purpose would be served because the landlord was refusing to receive the same. In support of his plea, he filed Exs. R -1 to R -8 the Money Order couponed evidencing the tender of rent and the endorsement of refusal thereon. Relying on these documents coupled with oral evidence, the Rent Controller dismissed the application holding that there was no wilful default on the part of the tenant. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, the land -lord preferred an appeal. The Appellate Judge, while conforming the order of the controller that there was no default for the months of March, April, May, June, July and August reversed the order holding that there was no tender of rent for the subsequent months i.e. for September, October, November, December and January. The Appellate Judge was of the view that since the tenant has not followed the procedure as contemplated under Section 8 of the Act, wilful default must be presumed. In this view, the learned Appellate Judge reversed the order of the Rent Controller and ordered eviction.

(2.) IN this revision Mr. N.V. Ranganadham, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that non -observance of the procedure under Section 8 does not entitle the land lord for eviction under section 10(2) of the Act. He submits that wilful default must be proved on the basis of evidence and mere default is not a ground for eviction of the tenant.

(3.) SECTION 10 of the Rent Control Act is designed to prevent unreasonable evictions. It is a beneficial legislation in favour of the tenants. No tenant can be evicted except for the grounds mentioned in section 10 and Secs. 12 & 13. One of the grounds on which eviction can be ordered under section 10(2) is wilful default in payment of rent. The default alleged is from 1 -3 -1976 to 31 -1 -1977. Both the courts have held that there was no default on the part of the tenant for six out of 11 months namely March April May, June, July and August. Reliance was placed on Exs. R 1 to R -8. Even the Appellate Court which held in favour of the landlord found that rent was tendered for the period from March to August, 1976 and it was refused by the land -lord. But the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the evidence of the tenant as R.W. 1 discloses that he remitted rent only for four months and not for 8 months. I have examined the Money Order coupons Exs. R -1, R -2, R -5 and R -7. They show that the rent tendered was for 8 months though the tenant RW 1 states in his evidence that he tendered rent only for four months. There appears to be some confusion about this. But I am not prepared to interfere with this finding of fact arrived at by both the Courts below. More over, this does not make any difference in principle because it is admitted that the tenant had remitted the rent for four months and the same was refused by the land -lord. The question whether it is tendered for 4 months or 8 months is not very significant for determining the point that is raised.