MOHD. AMANULLAH Vs. LATEEFUNNISA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Revision Petition filed by the tenant against the concurrent orders of both the courts below ordering his eviction. The only question involved in this revision is whether there is any wilful default in payment of rent for the period from June, 1975 to March, 1976. The case of the respondent landlady is that the tenant has committed wilful, default in payment of rent for the aforesaid period. The learned counsel for the tenant petitioner submitted that the tenant has paid municipal taxes amounting in all to Rs. 307 -81 which are due for more than three years and therefore he contended, in view of the decision of this Court reported in Sri Venkateswara Company vs. Deepak Transport, 1979(2) APLJ Page 48 wherein it is held by Ramachandra Rao J.

(2.) CONVERSELY , the learned counsel for the respondent landlady relying on a decision of this Court Reported in K. Rajaiah vs. S. Narasimloo 1975(2) APLJ Short Notes Page -32. Wherein Punnaiah, J. Held:

(3.) ADMITTEDLY the amount which has been paid is Rs. 307 -81. This comes to more than one year's rent which the tenant ought to have paid. It is also in evidence that before making payment of the tax, permission from the land -lady was not sought for by the tenant. Therefore, the tenant was not under any mandate or obligation to pay the tax even if it is due to the corporation for or on behalf of the landlady unless a situation is brought about where the demand if any, issued by the municipal corporation is informed to the land -lady by the tenant whereupon the land -lady refused to pay the tax resulting in the issuance of a destraint warrant. In the absence of such a situation the payment of taxes by the tenant to the corporation cannot be justified. Since admittedly, such a situation does not obtain in this case it would not be proper for the tenant, without the consent of the land -lady, to pay the taxes said to be due to the municipal corporation and claim that the provision of wilful default under which he will be liable for eviction, does not apply. There were in fact exchange of notices right from November, 1975 onwards to show that the amounts of rent should be paid to the land -lady and that in reply notice it was said that municipal taxes due have been paid. But that cannot be made a ground for escaping the liability under law on the ground that he has paid the taxes. There is no provision in the Municipal Corporation Act ensconcing the act of the petitioner tenant herein. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the order under revision. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. The petitioner is, however, given four months time to vacate the premises provided he pays regularly the rent as agreed.