NAGARAMAYYA Vs. RAQUIA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the tenant. The respondent filed a petition for his ejectment on diverse grounds. But, ultimately it was rested by both Tribunals that the petitioner committed wilful default in payment of rent under section 10 (2) (i) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (15 of 1960), for short, "the Act". Thus, this civil Revision Petition.

(2.) The case of the respondent landlady is that the petitioner committed default in payment of rent from February 1970 to November 1972 and filed R. C. No. 119 of 1973 but was dismissed for default, necessitating to file another R. C. No. 262 of 1974 for the default of the previous period as well as from December, 1972 to June 1974. Therefore, the petitioner committed wilful default in payment of rent. The petitioner pleaded in his counter that the respondent refused to receive the rent when tendered by him, On March 30,1966 on the demise of the respondent's father, the respondent filed R. C. No. 1956 of 1966 for ejectment of the petitioner which was ultimately dismissed on September 24, 1968. Thereafter, the respondent refused to receive the rent. Then the petitioner filed R. C. No. 202 of 1969 on April 29, 1969 under sec. 8 of the Act which was dismissed, but the appeal, R.A. No. 397 of 1970 was allowed by the appellate authority on December 9, 1970. In the interregnum, the respondent got issued a notice Ex. R. 8 dated February 23,1970 from. Municipal Corporation for demolition of the house and also for enhancement of the house tax. The petitioner objected under Ex. R. 9 to the notice of demolition of the house under section 459 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, for short, "the Corporation Act". He filed M. A. No. 279 of 1970, but before obtaining stay part of the demised premises southern portion was demolished. Then he tendered rent on March 30, 1970. But, the respondent refused to receive the rent under Ex. R. 1. Oh allowing R. A. 397/70 when he was to deposit the rent, the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad issued a notics. Ex. R. 11 dated January 31,1971 under Sec. 276 of the Corporation Act cailing upon the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,016-68 Ps. towards house tax and again under Exs. R. 12 and R. 13 notices for a further sum of Rs. 2,044/- and Rs,3,199/-. Then the petitioner filed the appeal before the appellate authority. He paid an amount of Rs. 200/- towards arrears of house tax for nne year. Then the appellate Court has held that the petitioner shall be responsible for payment of arrears as well. A revision was filed by the petitioner. The house tax was reduced on June 26, 1971. Then he paid rents to the respondents on July 15, 1971 after paying the property tax under Ex. R. 15. Simultaneously with the apportionment of bouse tax for reduction, the authority also allowed the appeal. .In tne meanwhile, the respondents counsel issued Ex. A. 1 notice on October 6, 1972 terminating the tenancy for the alleged defaults. Then the petitioner issued reply under Ex. A. 2 dated November 5,1972 detailing the circumstances under which he did not pay the rents. On receipt of the notice, he paid part of the rents to the counsel for the respondent in the court of the Rent Controller. Subsequently, he has paid all the amounts. There are no arrears. Therefore, he did not commit default much less wilful default in payment of rent.

(3.) The Controller did not accept me plea of the petitioner and ordered ejectment. On appeal, the Appellate Court found that the demolition of a portion of the premises was at the instance of the respondent. But, the petitioner is hot entitled to withhold the entire rent of Rs. 80/-. A reasons able portion of Rs. 20/-is deductable leand Rs. 60/- is to be paid. After issue of Ex. A. 1 notice, the petitioner did not pay rents. Therefore, the nonpayment constitutes wiiful default. Thus, the appellate Court confirmed eviction.