M V S PRASADA RAU Vs. K MANGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant Revision Petition arising out of the judgment in R.A. No. 331 of 1990 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad dated 22-11-1993. The land lady's eviction petition in R.C. No 2324 of 1984 on the file of the IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad was allowed on the ground that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rents and the said finding has been confirmed in the impugned judgment by the Appellate Court. Hence, the revision petition by the tenant.

(2.) The revision petitioner-tenant has been in occupation of the demised premises, which is a residential house, on a monthly rent of Rs. 180/- per month since 1975. The and lady asserted that the rent is payable before 10th of every month as the tenancy is a oral one, but the tenant averred that the land lady has been accepting the rents as per her convenience and, hence, the irregular payment of rents did not constitute wilful default. The tenant sent a demand draft for Rs.2,160/- being the rent for 12 months from September, 1982 to August, 1983 through a letter dated 19-5-1982 .Both the Courts below noticed that the rent from September, 1983 to April, 1984 was not paid at that time. Then the tenant sentan other letter dated 15-11-1985 stating that the rent from August, 1983 to October, 1985 (27 months) was payable and he sent a sum of Rs.1,260/- and appropriated the balance of Rs. 3,600/- which said to have been spent towards the repairs and white washing etc., during the year 1982. The land lady asserted that deduction of Rs. 3,600/- by the tenant towards the alleged repairs and white washing etc./is illegal and unwarranted and it was done without her consent. It is also her case that the rents for the months of November and December, 1985 are also not paid. Thus, the default is said to have been committed in the above manner. The tenant denied the same and averred that there are no arrears of rent and no wilful default was committed in payment of rents. That is insofar as the main ground of wilful default is concerned.

(3.) The land lady also claimed the demised Premises on the ground of bonafide requirement for Personal occupation and the tenant contested that ground too. On a consideration of the evidence on record, both the Courts below found concurrently that the land lady could not make out the bona fide requirement. Therefore, it is not necessary to go into that aspect.