HAN PRASAD BAARUKA Vs. T LAXMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the landlord and the respondent is the tenant.

(2.) The revision petitioner filed R.C. No.676 of 1990 under the provisions of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (the Act) seeking eviction of the first respondent from the mulgi bearing No.15-9-490 on the ground that she committed wilful default in payment of rent from August 1988 onwards. The first respondent filed her counter contending that when the rents for the months of August and September, 1988 were refused she sent the same through Money orders and since those Money orders were also refused and since there was no reply to the notice sent to inform the bank where deposit of rent could be a made she filed a petition under Section 8 of the Act seeking permission of the Court to deposit the rents into the Court and is regularly depositing the rent into the Courts therein and as such there is no wilful default in payment of rent on her part and so the petition is not maintainable.

(3.) During the pendency of the R.C. the first respondent died. Respondents 2 to 5 were brought on record as her legal representatives. The revision petitioner did not adduce any evidence on his behalf. On behalf of the first respondent, second respondent was examined as R.W.I and Exs.R-1 to R-67 were marked on behalf of the respondents. The learned Rent Controller holding that there was no wilful default in payment of rents dismissed R.C. No.676 of 1990 by his order dated 26-9-1994. Appeal against the said orders in R.A. No.806 of 1994 preferred by the revision petitioner before the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad was dismissed by the order dated 4-11-1997. Hence, this revision by the landlord.