C HANUMANTHA RAO Vs. M PREM SUDHAKAR RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the orders passed in two appeals RANo. 5/96 and R.A.No. 6/96 by principal Subordinate Judge, Rangareddy district on 26th of September, 1997. The two appeals which have been decided by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge arose out of a judgment passed by the Rent Controller in a case between the parties being R.C.No. 15/92. He passed the order on 16/04/1996 which had been challenged in appeals before the Principal Subordinate Judge.

(2.) The controversy is very short and concerns the parties with respect to tenancy of a premises. The tenancy was not disputed. The quantum of rent was not disputed. Two points which were considered by the Rent Controller were (a) whether there was willful default of payment of rent, and (b) whether the tenant had secured alternative accommodation. The Rent Controller found that there was willful default in payment of rent and therefore he passed a decree of eviction. He did not find that the tenant had secured alternative accommodation. Appeals were filed against the finding by both the parties before the learned Principal Subordinate Judge. The Principal Subordinate Judge while deciding the appeals agreed with the Rent Controller that there was willful default. He further set aside the finding of the Rent Controller with regard to the issue that whether the tenant had secured an alternative accommodation. So, by the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge both the issues now stand decided in favour of the Landlord against the tenant. The tenant has filed these revisions.

(3.) I have gone through the record and also through the orders passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge. It is not the case of the tenant that he had paid the rents. His case, however, is that Landlord refused to receive the rent for number of years and he deposited the rent in a Bank account opened by him in his own name. It is nowhere shown that the Landlord was ever communicated that a Bank account had been opened in which the rent was being deposited. The Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (X V of 1960) is a complete code governing the relationship of Landlord and tenants. The tenants have been given protection against eviction. A Landlord can only be able to evict a tenant if any of the grounds laid down in Sections 10, 11 & 12 of the Act become available to such a Land lord. Therefore, I am of the view that the provisions of the A.P. Rent Control Act need to be interpreted in such a way that whenever a right accrues to a Landlord for evicting the tenant the eviction should follow. It has been stated that the Landlord in this case very cleverly carved out a ground for eviction of the tenant by refusing to accept the rent. One would have believed this argument but for Section 8 of the A.P. Rent Control Act. The Legislature was conscious of such situations and therefore a detailed mechanism has been laid down in Section 8 which is supposed to be followed by tenants in case there is refusal of acceptance of rent by a Landlord. After all what was the impediment for the tenant for number of years to go to the Rent Controller and deposit the rent It is admitted fact that for number of years the Landlord did not receive the rent. It was received by him only after the suit was instituted and there was nothing on record to show that the tenant ever went to the Rent Controller. On this question the finding of both the Courts below is concurrent and in the revisional jurisdiction this Court would not like to re-appreciate the evidence, but the legal aspect of the issue involved has been considered and in my view if a tenant fails to deposit the rent for number of years in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of the A.P. Rent Control Act he is dearly a willful defaulter. In the present case the petitioner had deposited the rent in a Bank Account in his own name and therefore there was nothing which could stop the tenant from withdrawing this amount. It was only a plan created to defeat the rights of Landlord. Had the tenant been really interested in paying the rents he would have followed the mandate of Section-8 of the Act. Since Section 8 of the Act has not been followed by the petitioner, there is no way out but to hold that the tenant in this case was a wilful defaulter.