M NAGENDER RAO Vs. B M LAKSHMIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two C.R.Ps. arise out of the same common proceedings and thus they involve common questions of facts and law and as such I am disposing of both the C.R.Ps. by this common Judgment. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Rent Controller.

(2.) The petitioner in both the CRPs, is the tenant of the schedule mentioned premises and the respondent is the Landlord.

(3.) Both the CRPs have arisen out of the petition filed by the tenant under Order6, Rule 17r/w l51 C.P.C., in J.A.No. 510/94 in R.C.No. 163/92 filed by the tenant on the file of the Addl. Rent Controller, Secunderabad. I have to note at this stage itself that the respondent-landlord has filed an eviction petition against the tenant in R.C.No.131/92. One of the grounds of eviction is that the tenant had commited wilful default in payment of rent. On the other hand the tenant filed RC.No.163/92 seeking permission of the court to deposit the rents intocourt as per Sec.8(5) of the A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (herein after called the 'Rent Control Act') Both the cases were clubbed together and common evidence was recorded and when the matter was posted for arguments, the present I.A.No.510/94 was filed by the tenant in R.C.No.163/92 for anamendment of the pleading. In R.C.No.163/92 the tenant has stated mat when he sent the rent for the month of March 1992 through Monery Order, the respondent refused to receive the same without any bona fide reasons. But now by amendment, he wants todelete this plea and in substitution he wants to plead that the petitioner had personally met his Landlord in the month of January, 1992 expressing his inability to pay his rent in view of the fact that he had to perform his daughter's marriage on 15-4-92 for which the Landlord har orally permitted him to pay by giving his consent. This proposed amendment has been refused by the Addl. Rent Controller, Secunderabad by dismissing I.A.No.510/94 filed in R.C.No.163/92 vide Judgment and order dated 3-12-94. Being aggrieved by the same the tenant preferred an appeal before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in RASR.No.34605/94 under Sec.20 of the Rent Control Act. The Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, by order dated 20-12-1994 dismissed the appeal holding that such an appeal was not maintainable under Sec.20 of the Rent Control Act and even otherwise there were no merits in the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said order, the tenant preferred CRP.No.991/95 before this Court. Against the original order of the Rent Controller dt.3-12-1994 passed in I.A.No.510/94 in RC.No.163/92, the tenant preferred another CRP in CRP.No.5320/94 before this Court.