NAVABHARATH EDUCATIONAL COMMITTEE TIRUPATHI Vs. P VENKATESWARLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is filed under Section 22 of A.P. (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1962. The petitioner is the tenant. The Landlord filed R.C.C.No.38 of 1984 for eviction of the tenant and recovery of possession, on the ground that the petitioner had committed wilful default in payment of rent for 63 months and also denied the title of the landlord. Both the tribunals found that the petitioner failed to pay rent for 63 months from 1-3-1979 and a sum of Rs.22,050/- is due and payable by way of arrears of rent. It is also further found that the petitioner has denied title of the landlord claiming right of permanent tenancy.

(2.) Sri M.P. Chandramouli, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has informed the fourth respondent- P. Dakshnamurthy, who is acting on behalf of the landlord that he had spent more than three lakhs rupees for improvement of the property and the fourth respondent expressed his willingness that the rents could be adjusted towards the expenditure incurred by the petitioner. It is also his further contention that the landlord who is staying in America was informed by two letters about the same, but there is no response and as such, it must be deemed that there is implied consent by the landlord.

(3.) Both the Tribunals on a consideration of the relevant material on record, came to the conclusion that if really the fourth respondent has given consent, there is no need for the petitioner to address letters to the first respondent seeking his permission and as such, in the absence of any express permission from the first respondent, the petitioner had acted unilaterally and took the risk in spending the amount in this regard. I do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded as no tenant has a right to spend the rent for purposes other than one for which consent is accorded by the land lord. Absence of any specific response from the landlord cannot be deemed to be implied consent. There must be tacit or express consent from the landlord before the rent is diverted. Even otherwise, there are no circumstances pointing that there is any kind of implied consent by the landlord in this case. Hence, I agree with the finding of the Tribunals below that the petitioner had committed wilful default in payment of rent for 63 months as alleged.