Podugu Nagaraju vs Maturu Narayana Rao

This revision petition is directed against the orders of the Rent Controller, Amadalavalasa, dated 6-6-1995, passed in IA No.224 of 1994 in RCC No.4 of 1992.

The petitioner is the tenant and the respondent herein is the landlord, who filed a petition for eviction against the petitioner herein in the said RCC No.4 of 1992 u/s 10 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent, Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ''the Act'') While the said petition was pending, the tenant fell in arrears of rent, even in respect of agreed rent of Rs.400/- p.m. The landlord-respondent filed petition u/s 11(4) of the Act, seeking eviction of the respondent on the ground that an earlier order in IA No.51 of 1994, dated 30-7-1994 passed by the Rent Controller in respect of payment of arrears of rent by the date fixed by the Rent Controller, was violated by the petitioner. Under the previous order dated 30-7-1994, the Rent Controller directed that the tenant shall deposit the arrears of rent on or before 12-8-1994 and that he shall continue to deposit the agreed rent threrafter, every month. The landlord came up with the present petition alleging that the tenant has failed to carry out the earlier orders in respect of payment of rent.

A counter was filed on behalf of the tenant-petitioner herein denying the allegations and staling that the respondent was not in arrears of any rent and that he has been depositing the rent regularly.

It was not disputed that the last date of every month was the due date for payment of rent. As stated earlier, in IA No.51 of 1994 on a petition from the landlord, the Rent Contorller passed an order dated 30-7-1994 directing the respondent to deposit all arrears of rent on or before 12-8-1994, and that he shall continue to deposit the rents every month by the due date. In the said IA, a memo was filed on behalf of the landlord showing the particulars of deposit made by the tenant-petitioner herein. The learned Rent Controller has recorded that the contents of this memo were not disputed. This memo discloses that the tenant deposited a sum of Rs.7,600/- on 12-8-1994 and he also made a deposit in January, 1995.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner herein is that this memo filed by the landlord-respondent shows the deposit of Rs.7,600/-on 12-8-1994, which satisfies the requirement to pay the rent upto July, 1994, as directed by the Court in its earlier order. With regard to the rent in respect of the subsequent months, the memo mentions about the deposit in January, 1995. A curious argument is advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the fact that some deposit was made in January, 1995, does not mean that no deposits were made during the period from 12-8-1994 (on which date the sum of Rs.7,600/- was deposited) to January, 1995.

A clear statement in the memo that a deposit was made on 12-8-1994 and thereafter another deposit made in January, 1995 amounts to saying that no deposits were made during the intervening period. If, in fact, any deposits were made, it must be within the knowledge of the petitioner herein and it was for the petitioner to make a specific statement as to what deposits were made earlier to the deposit made in January, 1995. In fact, the impugned order of the learned Rent Controller records the fact that during the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the tenent stated that if some time is allowed, the tenant will deposit all the arrears and that the delay, in any, caused previously in depositing the rent was not intentional and thus prayed for time to deposit the arrears. The contents of the memo as above coupled with this representation on behalf of the tenant would go to show that there was lapse in depositing the rent by due dates on behalf of the tenant. No explanation was obviously offered for the said delay.

Under these circumstances, the order of the learned Rent Controller stopping all proceedings and directing eviction of the tenant is perfectly justified in view of the provisions u/s 11(4) of the Act. In fact, in the case of Laxminarayana Madanlal v. Jai Prakash and others 1986 (2) APLJ 77, it has been held that during the pendency of petition for eviction under the Act, the Rent Controller is empowered to make appropriate orders regarding payment of arrears of rent, and payment of rent for the subsequent period, and that it is mandatory on the part of the Rent Controlller to order eviction if there is default in depositing the rents, subject to showing sufficient cause on the part of the tenant for the failure to deposit the rent due. In the absence of any explanation, the order of eviction must be held to be in accordance with law.

In a recent case of this Court reported in Kondur Raj Kumar Vs. B. Sekhar, , this view has been reiterated and it has been held that in view of the provisions u/s 11(4) of the Act, failure of the tenant to pay rent justifies stopping of all further proceedings empowers the Rent Controller to pass a direction to the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building.

In view of the above facts and circumstances and the legal position, this revision has no merits and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. The petitioner is however granted 3 (Three) months time to vacate the premises.