BAILURI GOVINDA BHATTU Vs. TATAVARTHY NAGENDRA RAMA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the tenant against an order of the appellate authority passed under Section 20 of the A P Buildings (Lease Rent and Eviction). Control Act, 1960. confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller in R C C No. 5 of 1984 dated 25-9-1987.

(2.) R C C No. 5 of 1984 which belongs to the present round of litigation Inter parties was filed by the landlord for eviction of the tenant, the present revision petitioner, on the ground that the tenant had failed to pay within due date the daily rent of Rs 33/- for the period of September 1981 to November, 1983, when the first round of litigation was pending between the landlord and tenant in R C A No 25 of 1980 and C R P No. 4747 of 1982. The present application filed by the landlord under sec. 10(2)(1) of the Rent Control Act was resisted by the tenant mainly on the ground that there was no wilful default on his part although now in this C R P., Mr. C V N Sastry for the tenant had urged several more points of law. In the first round, there were an appeal and a revision to this Court both arising out of the petition then filed for eviction by the landlord. During the pendency of those appellate and revisional proceedings the tenant admittedly defaulted in depositing rents in due time which were however paid fater and collected by the landlord before those proceedings were closed. The first eviction petition was eventually dismissed But the landlord treating the tenant's default to pay rents during pendency of the earlier proceedings had instituted the present R C C No. 5 of 1984 seeking the eviction of the tenant on the ground of wilful default. That gives rise to the present revision petition.

(3.) The rent Controller held that there was wilful default on the part of the tenant to pay the rent during the earlier round of litigat'on. That there was default was never in serious doubt and it was wilful is the finding of the appellate court. But the tenant questioned the Rent Controller's jurisdiction to hear the matter on the basis of G O Ms. No. 636 General Administration dated 29-12-1983 issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh under Section 26 of the Rent Control Act. That statutory GO exempted from the purview of the Act those buildings the rent in respect of which exceeds Rs. 1,000/- per month. Landlords must seek eviction of their tenants from those buildings through civil courts and not through rent courts. The Rent controller rejected this argument not on the ground that lease in this case did not provide for monthly rent but on the ground that the monthly, rent of this building calculated by him came to only to Rs, 990/-. The Rent Controller does not appear to have agreed with the contention raised by the tenant that for defaults in payment of rent committed by him during the pendency of the previous proceedings, no independent and separate action for eviction lies. Against that order of the Rent Controller, the tenant filed an appeal under Section 20 of the Rent Control Act. Before the appellate authority the tenant repeated these contentions. He also raised before the appellate authority an alternative submission that in view of the fact that by the time the landlord had filed the present eviction petition there was no cause of action surviving inasmuch as the default which had occurred during the pendency of the earlier eviction proceedings was cured by the landlord accepting the rents paid by him later. These contentions were rejected by the appellate authority. Against that this revision petition has been filed.