M HARIFF SAB Vs. S SUDAN SAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. An order for eviction was passed against the tenant. The premises;in question are non-residential. The rent agreed upon is Rs 14/-per mensem. The petition for eviction is filed in 1970 on the file of the Principal District Munsif-cum-House Rent Controller. Cuddapah. The landlord had urged in the petition for eviction 4 grounds including a ground that the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of the rent. Though the Rent Controller found against the landlord on all the counts and dismissed the petition, the subordinate Judge who is the appellate authority under the Act hat found that the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of the rent. He however, confirmed the other findings. Feeling aggrieved by the order for eviction, the tenant has preferred the present revision.

(2.) Sri M.N. Narasimha Reddy for the petitioner contended that with regard to the arrears of rent due to the landlord, he had executed on 30-4-69 a promissory note for Rs. 400/- which wiped out all the arrears due upto that date. He contended that after 30-4-1969, there were no arrears at all. The learned counsel urged that by reason of this execution of the promissory note on 30 -4-69 all the arrears were wiped out and thereafter the relation between the parties was one of debtor and creditor tu respect of the arrears. He submitted that the character of arrears, if any, changed by reason of the execution of a negotiable instrument and the landlord had no right to move for eviction on the ground that there was a default committed by him in payment of the rent. The contention therefore comes to this that on the date of filing the petition for eviction by the land-lord, there were no arrears due, firstly, by reason of the execution of the promissory note for arrears and secondly by reason of the payments towards rent made till the date of the filing of the petition for eviction, The question, therefore, is, does the fact that admittedly, the tenant had executed a promissory note on 30-4-1969 for Rs.400/- which admittedly represents the arrears of rent, deprive the land-lord of his right to seek eviction of the tenant under Section 10 (2) (i) of the Act. Section 10(2) (i) and the relevant portions thereof may be set out as under:

(3.) Does the fact that for the arrears due till 30-4-1969, the tenant had executed a promissory note bring about an extinction of the right of the landlord to move for eviction Under Section 10(2)(i) of the Act? I am of the opinion that no such consequence is brought about. By reason of the execution of the promissory note, the arrears of rent which had accrued and which is a debt in the eye of law did not cease to exist. The fact that the relationship of a debtor and a creditor is brought about for the arrears of rent does not ipso facto bring about an end to the right of the landlord to evict the tenant under Section 10(2) (i) if the requirements of the said section are satisfied. In this connection, I may usefully refer to a decision of this Court in Patthan Khan vs Syed Pash(l) 1975 (2) A.P.L.J. 318 where the learned judge had observed that there is a legal obligation on the part of the tenants to pay the rents every month within the period prescribed under Section 10(2) (ii) of the Act and when he failed to make payments regularly within the time permitted continuously, it amounts to a wilful default.