SHAMLAL TIWARI Vs. NAJMUNNISA BEGUM ALIAS ZAINABUNISA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these revision petitions are preferred against the order dated 16. 12. 2004 passed by the Appellate Authority (Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court), Hyderabad in R. A. No. 87 of 2002. The tenant, aggrieved by the order of learned Rent Controller directing eviction on the ground of wilful default, and confirmed by the lower appellate authority, is in revision before this Court being CRP No. 1131 of 2005. The landladies filed CRP No. 5759 of 2005 against the order of the lower appellate authority in so far as it held the ground of tenant securing alternative accommodation, against them. Both these revision petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The parties are being referred to as "the tenant" and "the landladies" for the sake of convenience.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case which are necessary for deciding these revisions are as follows :

(3.) THE learned counsel for the tenant contends that the finding of wilful default reached against the tenant is ex-facie erroneous in view of the fact that the tenant had deposited a sum of Rs. 19,000.00 under Ex. R10-carbon copy of rental agreement and Ex. R6-original receipt and the tenant had also paid an amount of Rs. 1050.00 towards advance of rent at the time taking the premises on lease and the tenant had further paid an amount of Rs. 10,000.00 to the father of the landladies which was evidenced by Ex. R7. The learned counsel says that at least Rs. 30,050.00 is lying in deposit with the landladies and as such even assuming that the rent for the default period is not paid, which put together works out only Rs. 10,800.00, still sufficient deposit being available with the landladies, the tenant cannot be evicted on the ground of wilful default. He also contends that the landladies have held back the rental agreement with a view to suppress the recitals of the deposits as mentioned above and contends that neither of the landladies nor their brother, who is an attestor of Exs. R10 and R6 were examined and as such in the absence of any contra and rebuttal evidence on the part of the landladies disproving Exs. R10 and R6 or R7, the findings of wilful default is wholly unsustainable. He further contends that the rejection of these crucial documents by the learned Rent Controller as well as by the lower appellate authority is totally erroneous and in effect, just because the rental deed-Ex. R10 is disbelieved, both the courts below have rejected Exs. R6 and R7 also as if they are consequential documents to Ex. R10. He, therefore, contends that there is no consideration to these documents by the courts below. He further contends that on behalf of landladies their General Power of Attorney holder was examined as P. W. 1 and his evidence can only be with respect to acts or events subsequent to execution of the General Power of Attorney and he is incompetent to speak of events which transpired prior to his examination. The learned counsel relies on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another v. Indusind Bank Limited and others1 in support of the said submission.