R ROMAIAL Vs. M NARASIMHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed against the order dated 22-10-1991 in R.A.No. 339 of 1987 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The landlord filed rent case on the ground of wilful default for the period from 1-2-1978 to 31-7-1980. Admittedly the monthly rent is Rs. 23/-.

(2.) On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.l and 2 were examined and no Exhibits were marked. The respondent-tenant examined R.Ws.l and 2 and got marked Exhibits R-1 to R-7. Ex. R-1 is the rent receipt for Rs. 267/- dated 28-9-1978 for the period from 1-10-1974 to 18-5-1975, Ex. R-2 is the rent receipt for Rs. 216/- dated 28-9-1978 for the period from 19-9-1975 to 30-6-1976, Ex. R-3 is dated 8-12-1978 for Rs. 69/- paid for the period from 11-10-1976 to 31-12-1976, Ex. R-4 dated 10-11-1978 is the receipt for Rs. 69/- paid for the period 1-7-1976 to30-9-76,Ex.R-5dated 19-8-1979 is the receiptforRs.299/-for the period from 1-7-1977 to 31-1-1978, Ex.R-6 dated 29-10-1980 is the receipt for payment of Rs. 500/- and Ex. R-7 dated 12-5-1981 is the receipt for payment of Rs. 300/-.

(3.) Both the Courts held that the burden to pay the rents regularly is on the tenant. If he failed to do so, mat would amount to wilful default.The mere fact that the landlord received the rents irregularly as indicated above is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that they agreed for irregular payment of rent. Consequently, it allowed the petition and ordered eviction of the tenant.