K. Chandrakant Navaratan vs Sharada Bai

N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.—These revision petitions are filed aggrieved by the order of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, dated 29-4-1997 passed in R.A.Nod. 27 of 1994 and 28 of 1994.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is the tenant of the house bearing No. 21-2-131/8 and 21-2-131-7, situate at Charminar, Hyderabad. Against the order passed by the II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad in R.C.Nos. 1030 of 1987 and 1031 of 1987 an appeal was preferred 45 by the landlady. On appeal, the appellate judge allowed the appeal holding that the order passed by the Rent Controller, Hyderabad permitting the respondent/tenant to deposit the rents is not sustainable under law as there was agreement between the parties to enhance the rent at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per month from 1-9-1987. Against the order of the appellate Judge, the present revision is filed by the petitioner/tenant stating that he never agreed for enhancement of rent at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per month from 1-9-1987.

On perusal of the order passed by the learned appellate Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, it is seen that "right to deposit rent arises only when the landlord refuses to accept the rent lawfully payable by the tenant. The words'' any rent lawfully payable'' to him by the tenant in respect of any building are important. If the tender of the rent by the tenant does not represent the rent lawfully payable to the demised premises, the landlord is entitled to refuse it. In the present case, no doubt the rent was Rs. 250/-and Rs. 300/- per month initially but by virtue of Ex.R-5 the parties agreed to enhance the rent from 1-9-1987. Of course this is not accepted by the tenant. It is also true that the landlady has filed a civil suit for eviction. Here the tenants are different for the two mulgies and the rent is paid separately. Because of the agreement between the parties the tenants have agreed to pay Rs. 1200/- per month for the mulgies in case of their failure to vacate the premises within five years."

In view of the above, I am of the opinion that there is no illegality in the orders passed by the appellate Judge and no interference is warranted.

The revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs.