K AFSARUNNISA BEGUM Vs. K ANASUYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal representatives of the original tenant - the respondents in RC. No.64/2002 on the file of Principal Rent Controller at Secunderabad and the respondents in R.A.No.164/2003 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad - Appellate Authority had preferred the present C.R.P. under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (here-in-after, in short, referred to as 'Act ' for the purpose of convenience). The petitioners (here-in-after referred to as 'tenants') aggrieved by the reversing order made in R.A.No.164/2003 on the file of Appellate Authority aforesaid had preferred the present C.R.P. The respondent is the appellant in R.A.No.164/2003 and the respondent in the present C.R.P. (here-in- after referred to as landlady'). The landlady filed R.C.No.64/2002 on the file of Principal Rent Controller at Secunderabad praying for the relief of eviction on the ground of wilful default. Before the learned Rent Controller, the landlady was examined as P.W.1 and one of the legal representatives was examined as R.W.1. Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 were marked. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlady failed to establish that the tenants committed wilful default and ultimately negatived the relief. Aggrieved by the same, the landlady carried the matter by way of appeal R.A.No.164/2003 on the file of Appellate Authority as aforesaid and the appeal was allowed directing the tenants to vacate the premises and deliver possession to the landlady within two months from the date of the order. Aggrieved by the same, the present C.R.P. is preferred.

(2.) Contentions of Sri Mohd. Gulam Hussain:- Sri Gulam Hussain, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners - tenants had taken this Court through the findings which had been recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also the Appellate Authority and would comment that the Appellate Authority had not recorded specific finding relating to the period of wilful default. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the original tenant Hussain died, his wife shown as the first revision petitioner herein also died and the legal representatives are at present prosecuting the litigation. The learned Counsel would maintain thatduring the relevant period- November, 2001 onwards, the deceased first petitioner - the wife of the original tenant Hussain was not well and her survival itself was an uncertainty and in view of the same the said default occurred. The learned Counsel would maintain that the period of six months which had been reckoned by the landlady as wilful default was not correct and at the best the default can be taken as four months. However reasonable explanation had been given in relation thereto and hence this default may not fall under wilful default though this may amountto a just default. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the landlady filed another eviction petition R.C.No.89/98 on the ground of personal requirement and the same was dismissed and it is stated that the landlady is unsuccessful even in the appeal and this fact also may have to be taken into consideration while deciding this matter. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the proviso in Section 10(2) of the Act and would contend that by virtue of the said proviso, the ground of wilful default cannot be applied in all its rigor to the present case. While further elaborating the submissions, the learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on Siraj Ahmed Siddiquiv. Prem Nath Kapoor and Ashok Kumar and others v. Rishi Ram and others. The Counsel would maintain that though these decisions are under U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, the principle underlying the same can be extended to the present case and inasmuch as the tenants deposited Rs.3,000/- on 11-7-2002 and Rs.3,750/- on 12-7-2002 i.e., total arrears from November, 2001 to July, 2002, the relief of eviction cannot be granted to the landlady in the light of the same. The learned Counsel also pointed out to certain of the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority and would comment that all the facts and circumstances had not been appreciated properly by the Appellate Authority.

(3.) Contentions of Sri R. Raghunandan Rao:- Sri Raghunandan Rao, the learned Counsel representing Sri Kalyan Chakravarthi, the learned Counsel for the landlady, made the following submissions:- The learned Counsel would maintain that though there is some controversy between landlady and tenant relating to the actual reckoning of the period of wilful default, whether it is six months or four months, the fact remains that for a particular period default had been committed. The learned Counsel would maintain that the question which may have to be decided is whether the deposits made subsequent to the filing of the eviction petition, would enure to the benefit of the tenants so as to ward off the blow on the ground of wilful default. The learned Counsel would maintain that the Appellate Authority had considered all these aspects and arrived at the correct conclusion. While pointing out to the relevant paras, the learned Counsel also would comment that even relating to the explanation that the first petitioner was not well during the relevant period and the other aspects, no acceptable orconvincing material was placed before the Court and this is what had been observed by the Appellate Authority. While further commenting about the decisions relied upon by the Counsel representing the petitioners, the learned Counsel would maintain that these decisions are in the light of the language employed in Section 24 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 and such provision is not there under this Act and hence those decisions are distinguishable and at any rate, they need not be followed while deciding a case under this Act. The learned Counsel also relied upon several decisions and would comment that the mere making of a subsequent deposit after filing of the eviction petition cannot in any way help the tenants. The learned Counsel relied upon Samudrala Narasimha Rao (Died) per L.Rs. and S. Prakhasha Rao v. Smt. Ganga BaP; Manda Kameswara Rao (Died) per L.Rs., v. Pulle Venkateswarlu; J, Pushpalatha Devi (Died) by L.Rs. v. Shyam Sundar; Arnavaz Rustom Printer Mumbai and another v. N.D. Thadani and another; and Saifullah Basha and others v. M/s. Sakaray's Dresses Manufacturers of Children Garments. The learned Counsel also while commenting about the proviso under Section 10(2) of the Act would maintain that the said proviso cannot be invoked in the present case.