LAXMINARAYANA MADANLAL AND BROS Vs. JAI PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admittedly the 1st Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad directed the petitioners to deposit arrears of rent on or before 18-8-1982 and also directed payment of rent for the subsequent period on or before the 10th of every month. The order was made under Section 11 (3) of the A.P Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The petitioners paid rent for the month or August on the 13th of September, 1982 and for the month of September on the 12th of October, 1982. There was thus a delay of three days in depositing the rent for the month of August and a delay oi two days in depositing the rent for the month of September, 1982. Both the authorities below found that the petitioners had not deposited the rent on the stipulated date. The explanation offered by the petitioners that on account of failure on the part of their 'Pyravikar' to whom the amounts were entrusted for being deposited the delay was occasioned did not find acceptance with both the authorities balow. In fact both the authorities found that the amounts of rent for the months of August and September, 1982 were not paid into the hands of the 'Pyravikar' on the stipulated dates. The concurrent finding recorded by both the authorities below is a pure finding of ract reached on a careful assessment of the entire material placed before the authorities and is therefore not open to attack.

(2.) It is however submitted by Sri R. Venugopal Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that it is only in case of non-payment or non-deposit of the rent Section 11 (4) of the Act empowers the Rent Controller to direct the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also adds that in any event the Rent Controller is not empowered to make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building if on the date when he passes the order there is no subsisting default

(3.) Both the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, though prima facie atrractive suffer from a fallacy. Under Section 11 (4) of the Act, failure to pay or to deposit the rent on or before a specified date empowers the Rent Controller to pass an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. The expression 'as aforesaid' occurring in Sub Sec. (4) of Section 11 of the Act refers to determination of the amount of rent and the mode of payment or deposit of the same under Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Act. Under the Act a cause of action accrues to the landlord to seek eviction of his tenant on the ground of wilful default in payment of the stipulated rent by filing a petition before the Court of the Rent Controller. Subsequent to the instiution of the petition the Rent Controller is ampowered to make appropriate orders regarding payment of arrears of rent and payment of rent for the subsequent period. Section 11 of the Act is specifically intended to relieve the landlord of further hardship he is likely to be put to by compelling the tenant to fulfil his contractual obligations. It therefore, follows that failure on the part of the tenant to pay or to deposit the rent determined by the Rent Controller under Section 11 (3) of the Act or before the date specified by him empowers the Rent Centroller to direct the tenant to put the landlord in possession expression employed in Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act is 'Shall' thereby giving absolutely no discretion what so ever to the Rent Controller. In other words the Sub-Section imposes a mandate on the Rent Controller to direct the tenant to put the landtord in possession of the building in case of failure to pay or to deposit the rent as determined under Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Act The mandate is however whittled down by reason of the expression 'shall', unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contary' employed in the Sub-Section. In other words, where the tenant shows sufficient cause for failure to pay or to deposit the rent as determined in Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Act the penal consequence enacted in sub-section (4) does not follow. The burden is however on the defaulting tenant. As already stated both the authorities below had practically found that the petitioners had not shown sufficient cause for failure to pay or to deposit the rent.