AMURA RATHNIAH Vs. MYSORE KASAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Civil Revision Petition against the Order of the District Judge, Secunderabad, the appellate authority in rent control proceedings. The petitioner is the tenant.

(2.) An application was filed by the landlady for eviction of the tenant on two grounds : (a) that the tenant was irregular in the payment of rent and was in arrears to the extent of Rs. 80 upto 11th June, 1953 and (b) that he had put up an unauthorised construction in the house. A counter was filed by the tenant to say that he was never irregular in payment and that the practice generally was for the landlady to send her men at an interval of two or three months to collect the rent and on the last occasion as the landlady refused to receive the rent, it was sent by M.O. The landlady examined on her side her husband who is her duly constituted agent and the tenant examined himself and another witness.

(3.) The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the construction of the shed did not amount to an act of waste, and as such it did not furnish a ground for eviction But he relied upon sub-section 2(1) of section 10 of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954, which said that the tenant was liable to be evicted if he had not paid or tendered rent due by him within 15 days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord or where there is no agreement, on failure to pay by the last day of the month next following for which the rent is payable, the tenant was liable to be evicted. In the instant case he was of the opinion that the tenant was irregular in the payment of rents and defaulted to pay or tender rents continuously for 4 months. The explanation offered by the tenant, viz., that he expected that the landlady's husband would take the rent did not appeal to him. He, therefore, directed eviction on the ground of wilful default, purporting to act under section 10(2) (1) of the Act referred to. The appellate authority, the District Judge, Secunderabad, concurred with the Rent Controller and held that there was a wanton omission on the part of the tenant to pay the rent due, justifying eviction. The tenant has come up in revision. Learned counsel argued that both the Tribunals fell into an error in coming to a conclusion that there was wilful default on the part of the tenant, and that the approach of both the subordinate tribunals was entirely wrong.