DEVATHA RADHAKRISHNA MURTHY Vs. VALLABHANENI SUBBA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this rent-revision by the land-lord, two questions do arise for determination, Both the questions are fairly important. The factual matrix is as follows: -

(2.) The revisionist filed a petition for eviction of the respondent defendant on 10-1 1-1978, stating that the tenant failed wilfully to pay the rent from 1-4-1977 upto February 1978. On 20th February, 1978, a notice was issued for payment of arrears and also for vacating the scheduled premises. On 28-2-1978, the arrsars were paid and also a reply notice was sent. There after, the respondent continued to stay in the promises, by regularly paying (he rentals and the same was also accepted by the revisionist, right upto the end of October 1978. Thereafter, on 10-11-1978 an eviction petition was filed. In this state of circumstances, on evidence let in, both the courts below turned down the petition and so the landlord has come in revision to this court.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Parabrahma Sastry is two fold. 1) The respondent was liable to pay the rents regularly as per the agreement and also in view of the statutory provisions enacted under Section 10 (2) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. (2) The acceptance of rent and continuance thereafter by the tenant in the premises, will not bar his client from instituting a petition to restore him the possession of the premises under the Rent Control Act.