TAMMANA RAMESH BABU Vs. ALLAH BUX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both the Counsel.

(2.) This C.R.P. is filed by the petitioner alleging to be the owner of the suitpremises on the ground that the respondent has committed wilful default in payment of rents.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is theowner and landlord of the suit premises and that he has filed R.C.C. 15/89 before the Rent Controller for eviction of the respondent on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents. Thereafter, the petitioner filed LA. No. 1143/1992 under Section 11(4) of Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act') praying to evict the respondent summarily from the suit premises on the ground that the respondent did not pay the rents since the date of filing of the rent control case. It is also submitted by him that there was a dispute with regard to the title of the suit premises between the petitioner and the third party and as such, he preferred O.S. 157/1982 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Machilipatnam. It is further stated that after the disposal of the said suit, the petitioner intimated the same to the respondent and demanded the payment of rent. But, before filing of the said suit, it is stated that the respondent had already approached the Rent Controller in R.C.C.No. 22/81 under Section 9(3) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, and as per the orders passed in the said petition on 20-10-1982, the respondent-tenant is depositing the rents regularly in the Court. As the respondent-tenant did not pay the rent to the petitioner-landlord, he filed R.C.C.15/89 against the respondent on the ground that his title to the suit premises has been established and he also filed I.A.No. 1143/1992 under Section 11(4) of the Act to direct the respondent-tenant to pay or deposit the rent to the petitioner-landlord. The respondent-tenant set up a defence that he has been regularly depositing the rents as ordered on 29-10-1982 by the Rent Controller in R.C.C. No. 22/81, and as the respondent-tenant has not paid the rent to the petitioner, an appeal was preferred in A.S.No. 34/89 on the file of the Additional District Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam by the defendant therein, J.V.R1. and Sons, in Civil suit, which is pending. The respondent has no objection to pay the monthly rent after the disposal of the A.S.No. 34/89 and denied that the respondent has failed to pay the rent from 13-4-1989. The Rent Controller as well as the lower appellate Court held that as the respondent has showed the sufficient cause for not paying the rent to the petitioner, but deposited the same in the Rent Control Court under Section 9(3) of the Act, and dismissed the petition of the petitioner. The petitioner questions the impugned order on the ground that both the Courts have erred in rejecting the plea of the petitioner that the respondent-tenant has failed to pay the rents to the petitioner after decree was passed in his favour and when the same was intimated to him.