PALLAPOTHU NARSHIMHA RAO Vs. KIDANBI RADHAKRISHNAMACHARYALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisions petitions arise out of proceedings for eviction under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (referred to in this judgement as the ACT).

(2.) The petitioners in C. R. P. No. 552 of 1974 are the tenants of the respondent in respect of his building at Guntur which they were occupying on a monthly rent of Rs. 125/- and in which they were carrying on a business under the name and style " Tirumala Dresses". The respondent filed a petition for eviction before the Rent Controller ( District Munsiff) Guntur contending that the petitioners who were in arrears of rent to the extent of Rs. 1775/- had committed wilful default in payment of rent. He gave a notice demanding payment of rent and also asked the tenants to vacate the premises. The tenants sent a reply with a D/D for Rs. 1043.45 saying that they had paid Rs. 500/- on 8-11-1967, Rs. 200/- on 14-1-1968 and that the petitioners (sic) son had taken on credit clothes worth Rs. 129.55 (on credit) which was adjusted towards the rent. The respondent sent a reply stating that he never received Rs. 700/- and his son did not purchase clothes worth Rs. 129.55 on credit. The petitioners thereupon sent a D/D for Rs. 700/- in two instalments stating that the respondent son had returned the sum which was taken earlier. The petitioners also sent Rs. 125/- towards the rent of August 1968. Later, on they sent another draft on 16-9-1968 for Rs. 129.55 which they had earlier sought to have deduct by way of adjustments of the cost of clothes purchased by the respondents son. The petitioners contented that a sum of Rs. 500/- was paid on 8-11-1967 and Rs. 200/- on 14-1-1968 and Rs. 129.55 being the value of the clothes purchased by the respondents son was adjusted towards the rent. Hence they were right in sending the demand draft for Rs. 1045.45 after deducting these amounts. There was therefore no default at all. The Rent Controller held on consideration of the evidence that it could not be said that the evidence of the tenants that they paid Rs. 500/- and Rs. 200/- was false. He also held that the deduction of Rs. 129.55 from the rent was done honestly and bona fide. The landlord was accepting rents at very irregular intervals in lump sums at times even postponing for 7 or 8 months. In those circumstances the tenants honestly believed that the respondent would receive the rents as and when required by him. He therefore held that the petitioners did not commit any wilful default in payment of rent. The landlord preferred an appeal to the Subordinate Judge, Guntur. The learned Subordinate Judge, held that there was no satisfactory evidence to show that the tenants paid Rs. 700/- in two instalments prior to the notice. He also held that there was wilful default in payment of rent as he did not pay the rent regularly every month. It was argued before the Subordinate Judge that after the respondent gave notice to the petitioners they sent the entire rent due and subsequently the rent was being paid regularly which was received by the respondent and this amounted to acquiescence and it was not permissible for the respondent to pray for the eviction in those circumstances. In support of this contention reliance was place upon A. Abbayi v. R. Choultry ; (AIR 1974 Andh Pra 139) (FB). This decision was however held to be inapplicable as the decision was given under the Andhr Tenancy Act. The Subordinate Judge held that the acceptance of rent subsequently and prior to the filing of the petition did not bar the landlord from contending that the tenant committed wilful default.

(3.) The Petitioners herein have preferred C. R. P. No.552/74 as against that decision. C. R. P. No. 2234/ 1974;