MADDALI VENKATANARASIMHAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition by the landlord is to quash the orders of the Sub Collector, Oagole in confirming the orders of the Deputy Tahsildar dismissing his application to evict one Dodda Kotaiah the tenant, for the alleged default of payment of the rent for the year 1966-67 within the grace period of thirty days permissible under law.

(2.) The material facts which lie in a short compass may brie, fly be stated. The 1st respondent was let into possession of Acs. 3-33 cents in Survey No. 253 situated in Doddavarappadu village, Ongole taluk, Guntur district by the petitioner-landlord in the year 1961 for a period of six years as a tenant on payment of annual rent of Rs. 350/- payable by Magha Babula Amavasya of every year. The tenant, was liable to pay the rent within thirty days from 9tb of March, every year. Admittedly the 1st respondent used to send the rent by money order which was being received by the landlord with'' in a day or two thereafter. The landlord is a pleader's clerk residing at Ongole town. The tenant who resides in a village nearby is an illiterate and he used to come to Ongole and send the money by money order to the landlord. There was admittedly no default for the vears 1955-67, The payment for the year 1966-57 fell due within thirty days from 10-3-1967. The tenant, cams to Ongole and sent money order for a sum of Rs. 350/- on 10-3-1967 and the money order form was got filled up by another pleader's clerk at Ongole. It appears that there was a slight mistake in the description of the name of the landlord. It was described in the money order form as Maddali Lakshrninarasimham instead of Maddali Venkata Narasimham. But it is not disputed that the address to which the money order was sent is correct. The amount of Rs. 350/-sent towards rent by money order was returned to the tenant on the ground that there was a slight mistake in the name of the addressee. It appears that the tenant was unwell for a few days and thereafter on 7-4-57 he once again sent the money order from Lawyerpet post office, Ongole to the petitioner The petitioner filed an application for eviction before the Tahsildar on 12-4-1967 on the ground that the tenant has failed to pay rent within thirty days from 10-3-1967, Thereafter on 14-4-57 the money order was received by him. The tenant contested the application. He was examined as R. W. 1 and filed Exs. R. 1 to K. 8 whereas the petitioner examined himself as P. W. 1. The Deputy Tahsildar on a consideration of the entire evidence oral and documentary came to the conclusion that the petitioner landlord dodged the receipt of payment of rent of RSJ 350/-sent by the tenant by money order with the ulterior object of filing an application for eviction on the ground of default of the payment of rent and dismissed the application. On appeal, the Revenue Divisional Officer, confirmed the orders of the Deputy Tahsildar. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) Mr. Rama Sarma the learned Counsel for the landlord-petitioner strenuously contends that there is no presumption that a money order rent on a particular day reaches the petitioner on the same or next day, that the date of receipt, but not tender of makta is the starting point for finding out as to whether there was a failure of payment of money, and that the orders or both the Tribunals are liable to be quashed,