OMER BIN SALAM ASKARI Vs. YOUSUF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this Court is a tenant of mulgies bearing Nos.22-2-541/1/1 and 2, Dabeerpura, Hyderabad, and the respondent is the landlord thereof The rent in respect of the said premises was fixed at Rs.160.00 per month excluding electricity charges and the same was required to be paid in advance on the 1st day of every month. However, according to the respondent-landlord, the petitioner-tenant failed to pay rent for as long a period as three years covering 1-4-1983 to 31-3-1986 and committed wilful default in payment of rent which made him liable to be evicted from the demised premises. The ground of personal requirement is also urged by the landlord for securing eviction of the tenant.

(2.) The Rent Controller dismissed the suit for evictioa The matter was earned in appeal by the landlord before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, in RA No.362ofl991. The learned Chief Judge of the appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in favour of the landlord both on the ground of wilful default and on the ground of bow fide personal requirement. Aggrieved by the said order, the tenant has filed Ihe present Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) On the question of wilful default, the appellate Court observed that the respondent (tenant) paid Rs.960.00 on 24-10-1986 towards six months rent after institution of the proceedings. The appellate Court further observed that every month the tenant had to pay rent for the current month on or before 25th of that month or else he would be a defaulter. In the RC which was filed on 19-3-1986, it was not clarified when the rent of March, 1986 was paid. The rent for April, 1986 would not have been received by the landlord because he had already filed the RC- When the rent for April, 1986 was paid was not slated by the tenant. The rent for May, 1986 had to be paid on or before 25-05-1986, but the same was remitted by money order only in June, 1986. The respondent (tenant) who sent Ex.R6 money order afler entering his appearance in the RC did not even mention when he paid the rent for March and April, 1986. The appellate Court further observed that the docket of the trial Court showed that on 24-10-1986 the Counsel for the tenant paid Rs.960.00 to the Counsel for appellant-landlord which would mean that six months' rent was paid only on 24-10-1986 by the tenant inspite of the fact that he was fully aware that the appellant had filed RC against him inter alia alleging wilful default in payment of rent on his part which itself according to the learned appellate Court, was sufficient to establish wilful default on part of the tenant The appellate Court further took note of the specific case of the tenant that he was paying rent to the father of the landlord and that after the father of the landlord fell sick in 1984 he was paying rent to the mother of the landlord regularly till April, 1986, thatin chief examination as RW1 also he stated so and that during the cross-examination he stated that he is maintaining accounts for his business and that he did not mention the payment of rents in his accounts and that he had no documentary proof to show that he paid rent from April, 1983 to April, 1986, and held that the trial Court without considering the above evidence of RW1 was in error in drawing an inference against Ihe landlord for non-production of his income tax returns. PW1 clearly stated that he did not show the arrears of rent in his income tax returns. If the respondent (tenant) was sure that the income tax return of the landlord disclosed the payment of rent by him, he could have obtained certified copies thereof and filed before the Court to substantiate his contention. Further, according to the learned appellate Judge, merely because PW1 stated that they used to issue printed receipts earlier and that they were not issuing printed receipts from 1970 did not mean that he was not in the habit of issuing receipts. RW1 admitted that his account books did not disclose payment of rents to the landlord. RW3 to whom the tenant was said to have paid the rents on behalf of the landlord did not support tiie case of the tenant. She clearly stated that she never collected rent from the tenant and that she did not know him. The appellate Court further observed that RW3's statement that her husband used to collect rents earlier was of no consequence because even according to the tenant, the father of the landlord collected rent till 1984 and fell sick and from that time onwards he was paying rent to RW3. Non payment of rent for a period from 1-4-1983 to 31-3-1986 very much amounted to committing wilful default in payment of rent and, therefore, according to the appellate Court, the tenant not only committed wilful default in payment of rent from 1-4-1983 to 31-3-1986 but also failed to pay subsequent to the filing of the RC.