MOHAMMAD MOHEINUDDIN FAROOQUI Vs. MOHAMMAD ABDUL HAMEED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner herein is a tenant. The respondent filed R.C. No. 602/93 on the file of the III Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad seeking eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule premises on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. The respondent-landlord filed I.A. No. 784/93 under Section 11(l) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter, referred to as the 'Rent Control Act') seeking a direction to the tenant-petitioner to deposit the arrears of amounting to Rs. 8,945.00 for the period 18-8-198 8/09/1993 and a further sum of Rs. 6,600.00towards the rent-for the amenities provided. The Rent Controller allowed the I.A. by his order dated 16-7-1994 and directed the petitioner to deposit arrears of rent at Rs. 250.00per month from 18-8-88 to 20-6-1990 and at Rs. 285.00 per month from 21-6-90 to 30-6-94 by 1-8-94. The petitioner was also directed to pay future rent at Rs. 285; - per month on the 5th of every succeeding month. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred R.A. No. 472/94 before the appellate authority (Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court) who by his order dated 24-10-94 dismissed the appeal. C.R.P. No. 100/95 is filed against that order.

(2.) The respondent-landlord filed another interlocutory application I.A. 588/94 under S. 11(4) of the Act seeking a direction that the tenant should deliver vacant possession by reason of his failure to comply with the directions given by the Rent Controller in I.A. 784/93. The said I.A. having been allowed by an order dated 10-8-94, the tenant preferred R.A. 515/94. The appellate authority dismissed the said appeal as a consequence of dismissal of the said R.A. 472/94. CRP No. 101/95 is directed against that order.

(3.) The case of the respondent is that he purchased the premises bearing No. 17-3-756/3 situate at Jaffer Road, Yakutpura, Hyderabad from one Sri P. Ramaswamy (PW 1) on 22-5-1992 and that the petitioner failed to pay rent from the inception of the tenancy. To cover up his default, he filed an application RC No. 613/92 under S. 9(3) of the Act for permission to deposit the rent in Court as he entertained a doubt as to who was entitled to receive the rent, that petition was allowed with a direction to deposit the rent including the anears of rent at the rate of Rs.300.00 into Court to the credit of the respondent (2nd respondent in RC 613/92) who became the owner of the property by purchasing the same from Sri Ramaswamy' (1st respondent therein). The arrears of rent was directed to be deposited within 15 days from, the date of the order and the future rent on 5th of every succeeding month. This order was passed on 23-4-1993. The directions given. in that order were not complied with and the petitioner did not pay the rent up to 30/09/1993 i.e., till the date of filing 1. A: 784/93. Hence the I. A. was filed to direct the petitioner-tenant to pay a sum of Rupees 16,545/- towards arrears of rent.