CHAKKA SUBBA RAO Vs. NALISETTY VENKAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the landlord of a house situate within Penugonda Panchayat. The respondents are his tenants, the rent payable being Rs. 15 per month. The petitioner filed an application before the Rent Controller for eviction of the respondent alleging, among other grounds, that the respondents had committed wilful default of payment of rent from January, 1964, till the date of filing of the petition for eviction. The respondents pleaded that the house had fallen into disrepair and that in pursuance of an agreement between themselves and the landlord they incurred an expenditure of which under the agreement they were entitled to adjust towards the rent payable by them.

(2.) The respondents deposited the entire arrears of rent after the filing of the petition for eviction. Subsequent to the filing of the petition for eviction the respondents also filed S.C. No. 113 of 1965 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court, Tanuku for recovery of the amountof Rs. 250 claimed tohave been spent by them for repairing the house. The learned Small Cause Judge found that the alleged agreement pleaded by the tenants that they were entitled to repair the buildings and claim reimbursement was not true. He, however, found that under section 70 of the Contract Act the tenants were entitled to recover compensation for the lawful repairs effected by them which were not intended to be gratuitous and which were effected for the benefit of the landlord. On that basis the learned Small Cause Judge decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 70.

(3.) The Rent Controller also found that the agreement pleaded by the tenants was not true. However, he dismissed the petition for eviction on the ground that there was no wilful default in the circumstances of the case, as the tenants were justified in thinking that under law the rent could be adjusted towards the amount spent by them on repairs. On appeal preferred by the landlord, the learned Subordinate Judge also found that the agreement pleaded by the tenants was not true. He also held that there was no wilful default because the tenants withheld payment of rent as they thought they were entitled to be reimbursed. The landlord has now filed the present application for revision under section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act of 1960.