Sri Gulab Chand vs Smt. D. Nagamma and Others

P.S. Narayana, J.—Heard Sri Vilas V. Afzulpurkar and Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, the learned counsel representing the respective parties.

These Revisions are filed by the tenants relating to the respective premises, the landlords being common in all these matters. The ground of wilful default and the period of the alleged wilful default and all other facts in all these matters e4xcept the tenants being different, are all almost one and the same. C.R.P. No. 1618/2001 is filed by the unsuccessful tenant as against a reversing Judgment in R.A. No. 178/97 on the file of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad which was filed by the landlords aggrieved by the dismissal of the eviction petition in R.C. No. 153/94 on the file of III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. Likewise, C.R.P. No. 1620/2001 was filed by another tenant aggrieved by reversing order made in R.A. No. 179/97 on the file of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad reversing the order made in R.C. No. 152/94 on the file of III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. The other Revision C.R.P. No. 1632/2001 was preferred by yet another tenant as against an order in R.A. No. 177/97 on the file of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad reversing an order of dismissing eviction petition in R.C. No. 151/94 on the file of III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. Except for certain minor variations, the facts in all these matters are almost the same.

For the purpose of convenience, the respondents in these Civil Revision Petitions are referred to as landlords and the Revision Petitioners are referred to as tenants, hereinafter.

In R.C. No. 153/94 the pleadings are as follows:

The petitioners-landlords filed the eviction petition against the respondent-tenant in the R.C. u/s 10(2)(i) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 for his eviction in respect of the premises bearing No. 15-8-90 situate in Sidiamber Bazar, Hyderabad. The allegations in the petition are that the husband of the 1st petitioner late D. Eknath Rao was the owner of the non-residential building consisting of three mulgies on the ground floor and two halls on the first floor situate at Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad. The mulgies bear municipal numbers 15-8-19, 15-8-20 and 15-8-22 and the halls in the first floor bear Nos. 16-8-18, 16-8-21. The respondent is a tenant in the mulgi bearing No. 15-8-19 on a monthly rent of Rs.70/- per month.

Late Sri D. Eknath Rao filed an eviction petition against the respondent in R.C. No. 1481/86 on the file of IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad and an appeal in R.A. No. 52/89 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad is pending against the decision in the said R.C. Eknath Rao died on 9-10-1993 and before his death he executed his last and final Will on 22-2-1993 whereunder he bequeathed the double storeyed building bearing No. 15-8-19 to 15-8-22 situate at Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad to his grand son B. Kamala Kumar, the 3rd petitioner herein. Thus the 3rd petitioner became the owner and the landlord of the said building and the demised mulgi.

After the death of Eknath Rao, the 2nd petitioner and father of 3rd petitioner informed the respondent/tenant about the Will in the first week of November, 1993. The 3rd petitioner through his father also filed an application to permit him to prosecute the appeal in R.A. No. 52/89. The respondent used to deposit the rents in the account of late Sri D. Eknath Rao in Vasavi Co-operative Urban Bank, Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad. After the death of Eknath Rao the account was closed. The respondent deposited rents for the month of October, 1993 on 15-11-1993 and thereafter did not pay the rents to any one in spite of instructions given as stated above. The respondent is due an amount of Rs.280/- towards the rents from 1st November, 1993 to end of February, 1994 at the rate of Rs.70/- per month. This default is wilful and hence, the respondent is liable for eviction on this ground.

The tenant filed a counter admitting the ownership of Eknath Rao and it was pleaded that originally his father had taken the demised premises on rent from the earlier owner and is occupying the premises on rent from the last 35 years on a monthly rent of Rs.70/-. He admitted that late Eknath Rao filed R.C. No. 1481/86 and the same was dismissed by the IV Additional Rent Controller on 26-11-1988 and an appeal was filed against the order in R.A. No. 52/89 and the said appeal was also dismissed on 8-3-1994. The further averments in the counter are that he is not aware of the execution of any will by Eknath Rao whereunder the suit premises is stated to be bequeathed to the 3rd petitioner. He also denied that neither the 3rd petitioner nor any one on his behalf has communicated the said fact to him and required him to pay the rent. The petition filed by the 3rd petitioner to bring him on record as legal representative of late D. Eknath Rao has been dismissed by the appellate Court and petitioners 1 and 2 are the legal representatives of late D. Eknath Rao. When this respondent got issued a notice of Eknath Rao demanding him to furnish his bank account number late D. Eknath Rao furnished his bank account number which is in Vasavi Cooperative Urban Bank, Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad and the respondent has deposited the rents upto the end of January, 1994 in the said account. The respondent is not aware as to when the account was closed by the petitioners. The respondent tendered the rents to the petitioners every month but they purposely refused to receive them. Then the rents were sent by Money order to the 1st petitioner which he avoided to collect. He denied that the rent from November, 1993 to February, 1994 amounting to Rs.280/- remained unpaid. Rents upto January, 1994 were already deposited in the bank and the rent for the month of February, 1994 was sent by money order to 1st petitioner which she avoided to receive. As on 28-2-1994 i.e., the date of filing of the petition, no rent was due and no wilful default has been committed by the respondent.

In C.R.P. No. 1620/2001 arising out of R.C. No. 152/94 and R.A. No. 179/97, the pleadings of the respective parties are as follows:-

The landlords filed the eviction petition against the respondent-tenant in the R.C. u/s 10(2)(i) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 for his eviction relating to premises bearing No. 15-8-22 situate at Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad. The allegations in the petition are that the husband of the 1st petitioner late D. Eknath Rao was the owner of the non-residential building consisting of three mulgies on the ground floor and two halls on the first floor situate at Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad. The mulgies bear municipal numbers 15-8-19, 15-8-20 and 15-8-22 and the halls in the first floor bear the numbers 15-8-18, 15-8-21. The respondent is a tenant in the mulgi bearing No. 15-8-22 on a monthly rent of Rs.45/- per month. Late Sri D. Eknath Rao filed an eviction petition against the respondent in R.C. No. 1482/86 on the file of the IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad and an appeal in R.A. No. 53/89 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad is pending against the decision in the said R.C. Eknath Rao died on 9-10-1993 and before his death he executed his last and final Will on 22-2-1993 whereunder he bequeathed the double storeyed building bearing No. 15-8-18 to 15-8-22 situate at Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad to his grand son D. Kamal Kumar, the 3rd petitioner herein. Thus the 3rd petitioner became the owner and landlord of the said building and the demised mulgi.

After the death of Eknath Rao, 2nd petitioner and father of 3rd petitioner informed the respondent/tenant about the Will in the first week of November, 1993. The 3rd petitioner through his father also filed an application to permit him to prosecute the appeal in R.A. No. 53/89. The respondent used to deposit the rents in the account of late Sri D. Eknath Rao in Vasavi Cooperative Urban Bank, Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad. After the death of Eknath Rao the account was closed. The respondent deposited the rents for the month of October, 1993 on 16-11-1993 and thereafter did not pay the rents to any one in spite of instructions given as above. The respondent is due an amount of Rs.180/- towards the rents from 1st November, 1993 to the end of February, 1994 at the rate of Rs.45/- per month. This default is willful and hence the respondent is liable for eviction on this ground.

The respondent-tenant filed a counter admitting the ownership of Eknath Rao and it was further averred that originally his father had taken the demised premises on rent from the earlier owner and he is occupying the premises for the last 35 years on a monthly rent of Rs.45/-. He admitted that late Eknath Rao filed R.C. No. 1482/86 and the same was dismissed by the IV Additional Rent Controller on 26-11-1988 and an appeal was filed against the said order in R.A. No. 53/89 and the said appeal was also dismissed on 8-3-1994. The further averments in the counter are that he is not aware of the execution of any Will by Eknath Rao whereunder the suit premises is stated to be bequeathed to 3rd petitioner. He also denied that neither the 3rd petitioner nor any one on his behalf has communicated the said fact to him, and required him to pay the rent. The petition filed by the 3rd petitioner to bring him on record as legal representative of late D. Eknath Rao has been dismissed by the appellate Court and petitioners 1 and 2 are the legal representatives of late D. Eknath Rao. When this respondent got issued a notice to Eknath Rao demanding him to furnish his bank account number late D. Eknath Rao furnished his bank account number which is in Vasavi Cooperative Urban Bank, Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad and the respondent has deposited the rents upto the end of January, 1994 in the said account. The respondent is not aware as to when that account was closed by the petitioners. The respondent tendered the rents to the petitioners every month but they purposely refused to receive them. Then the rents were sent by Money order to 1st petitioner which he avoided to collect. He denied that the rent from November, 1993 to February, 1994 amounting to Rs.180/- remained unpaid. Rents upto January, 1994 were already deposited in the bank and the rent for the month of February, 1994 was sent by Money order to 1st petitioner which she avoided to receive. As on 28-2-1994 i.e., date of filing of the petition no rent was due and no wilful default has been committed by the respondent.

In C.R.P. No. 1632/2001 it was pleaded that the landlords-petitioners filed eviction petition against the respondent-tenant u/s 10(2)(i) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 for her eviction in respect of premises bearing No. 15-8-20 situate at Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad. It was further averred that the husband of the 1st petitioner in the R.C. late D. Eknath Rao was the owner of the non-residential building consisting of three mulgies on the ground floor and two halls on the first floor situate at Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad. The mulgies bear municipal numbers 15-8-19, 15-8-20 and 15-8-22 and the halls in the first floor bear numbers 15-8-18, 15-8-21. The respondent is a tenant in the mulgi bearing No. 15-8-20 on a monthly rent of Rs.80 per month. Late Sri D. Eknath Rao filed an eviction petition against the respondent in R.C. No. 1480/86 on the file of the IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad and an appeal in R.A. No. 51/89 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad is pending against the decision in the said R.C. Eknath Rao died on 9-10-1993 and before his death he executed his last and final Will on 22-2-1993 whereunder he bequeathed the double storeyed building bearing No. 15-8-18 to 15-8-22 situate at Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad to his grand son D. Kamal Kumar, the 3rd petitioner herein. Thus the 3rd petitioner became the owner and landlord of the said building and the demised mulgi.

After the death of Eknath Rao, 2nd petitioner and father of 3rd petitioner informed the respondent/tenant about the Will in the first week of November, 1993. The 3rd petitioner through his father also filed an application to permit him to prosecute the appeal in R.A. No. 51/89. The respondent used to deposit the rents in the account of late Sri D. Eknath Rao in Vasavi Cooperative Urban Bank, Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad. After the death of Eknath Rao the account was closed. The respondent deposited the rents for the month of October, 1993 on 15-11-1993 and thereafter did not pay the rents to any one in spite of instructions given as above. The respondent is due an amount of Rs.320/- towards the rents from 1st November, 1993 to the end of February, 1994 at the rate of Rs.80/- per month. This default is willful and hence the respondent is liable for eviction on this ground.

The respondent-tenant filed a counter admitting the ownership of Eknath Rao and it was further averred that originally her husband had taken the demised premises on rent from the earlier owner and is occupying the premises for the last 35 years on a monthly rent of Rs.80/-. She admitted that late Eknath Rao filed R.C. No. 1480/86 and the same was dismissed by the IV Additional Rent Controller on 26-11-1988 and an appeal was filed against the said order in R.A. No. 51/89 and the said appeal was also dismissed on 8-3-1994. The further averments in the counter are that she is not aware of the execution of any Will by Eknath Rao whereunder the suit premises is stated to be bequeathed to 3rd petitioner. She also denied that neither the 3rd petitioner nor any one on his behalf has communicated the said fact to her, and required her to pay the rent. The petition filed by the 3rd petitioner to bring him on record as legal representative of late D. Eknath Rao has been dismissed by the appellate Court and petitioners 1 and 2 are the legal representatives of late D. Eknath Rao. When this respondent got issued a notice to Eknath Rao demanding him to furnish his bank account number late D. Eknath Rao furnished his bank account number which is in Vasavi Cooperative Urban Bank, Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad and the respondent has deposited the rents upto the end of January, 1994 in the said account. The respondent is not aware as to when that account was closed by the petitioners. The respondent tendered the rents to the petitioners every month but they purposely refused to receive them. Then the rents were sent by Money order to 1st petitioner which he avoided to collect. He denied that the rent from November, 1993 to February, 1994 amounting to Rs.320/- remained unpaid. Rents upto January, 1994 were already deposited in the bank and the rent for the month of February, 1994 was sent by Money order to 1st petitioner which she avoided to receive. As on 28-2-1994 i.e., date of filing of the petition no rent was due and no wilful default has been committed by the respondent.

On the basis of the respective pleadings of the parties, in all the above matters, the learned Rent Controller had framed a point for consideration viz., whether the respondent-tenant in the R.C. is a willful defaulter in payment of rents as claimed by the petitioners as mentioned in the eviction petition, and on appreciation of evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and also Exs.P-1 to P-4 and RW-1 and Exs.R-1 to R-19 and after discussing the respective contentions of the parties and on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence had dismissed all the eviction petitions by orders dated 5-5-1997 in the respective R.Cs. and the landlords aggrieved by the said orders dismissing the eviction petitions had carried the matters in appeals R.A. Nos. 178/97, 179/97, 177/97 respectively, which were allowed by the appellate authority and aggrieved by the same the respective tenants had preferred the present Civil Revision Petitions. The appellate authority had framed the following point for consideration in all these matters:

"Whether the respondent-tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rents for the period from November, 1993 to February 1994 and is liable for eviction".

The appellate authority had discussed the said point at paragraphs 9 to 15 of the respective orders reversing the orders of the learned Rent Controller.

Sri Vilas Afzulpurkar, the learned counsel representing the Revision Petitioners-tenants in all these Civil Revision Petitions had submitted that the factual matrix and also the stand taken by all the Revision Petitioners-tenants in all these Civil Revision Petitions is virtually one and the same. The learned counsel had taken me in detail through the pleadings of the respective parties, the contentions raised by the respective parties and the orders made by the learned Rent Controller and how the reversing order of the appellate authority are erroneous and not sustainable in law. The learned counsel also in fact, apart from drawing my attention to the findings of both the learned Rent Controller and also the learned appellate authority had also taken me through the relevant portion of the evidence available on record, especially the evidence of PW-1. The learned counsel had explained the circumstances under which the alleged default had occurred and there was absolutely no intimation about the death of Eknath Rao and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the alleged default as contended by the landlord had occurred and in fact there is no default at all or even otherwise, the alleged default at the best can be termed as default only and will not fall under the ground of wilful default. The learned counsel had drawn my attention to Ex.C-1 and also absence of reference to the Will in the memo and also the dates when the summons had been served and when Vakalath was filed and when the deposit had been made. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to the order made in C.R.P. No. 1007/94. The learned counsel also had submitted that the alleged default at the best can be termed as only a technical default which cannot be said to be wilful default at any stretch of imagination and since there is no supine indifference on the part of the tenants, it is not a conscious or deliberate act and hence the default cannot be styled as wilful default. The learned counsel had placed reliance on Kameshwar Singh Srivastava Vs. IV Addl. District Judge, Lucknow and Others, , M/s. Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. Vs. Govindas Purushothamdas and Another, and M/S Chordia Automobiles Vs. S. Moosa and Others, .

Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, the learned counsel representing the landlords had contended that several of the facts between the parties are not in dispute at all. The learned counsel pointed out that the common ground of wilful default in all these matters relates to November 1993 to February 1994. Eknath Rao died on 9-10-1993 and the said Eknath Rao executed a Will Ex.C-1 dated 22-3-1993. Even by the date of death of Eknath Rao, Rent Appeals 51/89, 52/89 and 53/89 against Kesra Bai, Gangaram and Gulab Chand were pending disposal. It is not in dispute that on 3-11-1993 memos were filed in these Rent Appeals to the effect that Eknath Rao died and on 18-11-1993, L.R. applications were filed in which it was specifically stated that Eknath Rao had executed a Will. The eviction petition was filed on 2-3-1994 and summons were served on 6-4-1994 and vakalaths were filed on 12-4-1994. Initially in the counter, the tenants had taken a stand that they had no knowledge about the death of Eknath Rao at all. But in evidence, they admitted that on 3-11-1993 memos were filed in the Rent Appeals to the effect that Eknath Rao died. It was further contended by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya that these facts are not in dispute and in such circumstances what are the obligations imposed on the tenants by law may have to be considered for the purpose of deciding whether the tenants had committed wilful default in these cases or not. The learned counsel had strenuously contended that it is not in dispute that the Rent Appeals were pending when Eknath Rao died and whoever may be the legal representatives, the tenants are under an obligation to pay the rents or deposit the rents as per law and they should have chosen to deposit the rents to the credit of the said pending Rent Appeals. The learned counsel had drawn my attention to Section 10(2)(i) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 and had pointed out the obligation on the part of the tenant to pay the rent within the stipulated time as specified by the provision and when that obligation imposed by law is not discharged, the tenant is liable to be evicted on the ground of wilful default. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to Rule 5 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Rules, 1961 in this regard. The learned counsel also had contended that under Rue 5(6) of the Rules, a tenant, against whom application for eviction has been made before the Controller, shall deposit all arrears of rent due by him if any in respect of the building within such reasonable time not exceeding 15 days as may be specified by the Controller. The learned counsel had placed reliance on N.RAJA RAO Vs. A.SHANKARA RAO, 1970(1) APLJ 93 (SN). The learned counsel also had contended that the notice was issued to inform the Bank on 29-6-1994 and reply was given on 8-7-1994 specifying A.P. Mahesh Cooperative Bank, Begum Bazar and on 18-7-1994 only rents were deposited. The account was closed even on 4-12-1993. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to the entries in the pass book showing the October rent also was deposited by Gulab Chand on 2-11-1993, by Ganga Ram on 16-11-1993 and by Kesra Bai on 15-11-1993. Though the pay-in-slips wee shown there are no entries made in the passbook and hence it can be taken that the tenants had not deposited the rents. The learned counsel also had strenuously contended that the statement of account also was not filed to establish this aspect. The learned counsel had drawn my attention to the findings of PW-1 who narrated all the events and the facts and circumstances and the M.Os. were not sent to the correct address and it shows recklessness and negligence on the part of the tenants. The learned counsel also had contended that this will definitely amount to non-performance of the duty or the obligation imposed by law and inasmuch as the procedure was not followed this conduct of the tenants will definitely amount to wilful default and the decision of the appellate authority cannot be said to be perverse, but convincing reasons had been recorded by the appellate authority and hence the Civil Revision Petitions are liable to be dismissed.

PW-1, the wife of the deceased owner was examined on commission and she had deposed that her husband, the original owner, died three years back and she was not the owner of the premises and her husband had bequeathed the petition schedule building by virtue of a registered will in favour of his grand son, the 3rd respondent in the C.R.Ps. PW-1 also had not denied about the jural relationship of landlord and tenant and she had admitted in her cross-examination that she did not issue any notice or letter to the tenants of the building informing them for payment of rents after the demise of her husband Eknath Rao. PW-1 also denied that she had refused the rents sent by way of M.Os. PW-2 in his cross-examination admitted that they had not issued any written notice to the effect that the property was bequeathed by virtue of a Will in favour of the 3rd respondent in the C.R.Ps. i.e., the 3rd petitioner in the R.Cs. PW-2 also admitted that they have not informed the tenants in writing that future rents should not be deposited in his father''s account and they had also not informed about its closure and it was further admitted by PW-2 that notice was sent calling upon to furnish particulars of bank account and after getting reply, the tenants remitted the rents in Bank account furnished by them. It is also not in dispute that the Revision Petitioners-tenants have been in possession of the respective portions for sufficiently a long time. It is also not in dispute that during the life time of the original owner Eknath Rao, the tenants chose to deposit monthly rents in his Bank account and the same was closed only on 4-12-1993. But however, the information of closure of the account was not furnished to the tenants and without having knowledge about the same, the tenants were continuing to deposit the amounts. No doubt, on the aspect of absence of evidence in this regard, Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, the learned counsel for the respondents in all the Revisions had seriously urged that except the pay-in-slips, no other material had been placed, including the statement of account, and hence the same cannot be believed at all. If the series of events are taken into consideration since though rents were tendered they were refused - evidenced by Exs.R-1 to R-14 postal receipts and endorsement of refusal or refusal of M.Os. sent by the tenants, they were left with no other option except to issue a notice and then only the account number was furnished. It is no doubt true that as contended by Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, the tenants could have possibly deposited the rents in the pending Rent Appeals by seeking permission, whoever may be the legal representative. But however that course was not followed by these tenants. It is pertinent to note that it is not the case of the respondents that the Revision Petitioners are usual, habitual defaulters and apart from this the wilful default alleged is from November 1993 to February 1994. It is no doubt true that the tenant is under an obligation to pay the rents regularly in view of Section 10(2)(i) of the Act and Rule 5(6) of the Rules of 1961. It may be that the tenants who have been resisting the threat of eviction from sufficiently a long time could have been more cautious and careful. But now the question is whether this default in the facts and circumstances of the case can be termed as wilful default or not? The learned Rent Controller in fact after appreciating the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and also RW-1 and Exs.R-1 to R-19 and also Exs.P-1 to P-4 had arrived at the conclusion that the tenants had not committed wilful default and this finding was reversed by the appellate authority at paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the impugned Judgment. The learned appellate authority after noting the relevant dates at paragraph 13 had observed that when the Appeals were pending the tenants should have deposited the rents to the credit of these appeals. The learned appellate authority also had observed that Rule 5(6) of the Rules had been contravened and the deposit made in the account of a dead person and sending M.Os. to the 1st respondent even though the tenants are aware of the fact that the 3rd respondent is the legal representative of Eknath Rao as per the Will, will constitute wilful default. The reasoning of the appellate authority relating to the aspect of wilful default cannot be sustained in the light of the specific stand taken by the tenants that there was no notice and they had made every reasonable attempt to tender the rents and because of the reasons explained by them they could not possibly make the payments. In the decision referred (4) supra, the Apex Court had observed that wilful default means an act consciously or deliberately done with open defiance and intention to not to pay the rent. In the decision referred (1) supra, while dealing with the aspect of default in payment of rents under U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting and Eviction) Act, 1972 it was held that such default should be real and not mere technical and where there are several landlords and the tenant was willing to pay the rent to one of them, but the landlord was refusing to accept the same without any justification, deposit of rent in Court by the tenant under the provisions of the Rent Act would absolve him from liability of eviction on the ground of default. In the decision referred (2) supra it was held that though an application for permission to deposit rents into Court filed by the tenant was dismissed and the landlord had been accepting the rent deposited before filing the eviction petition and there was no default in payment of admitted rents subsisting on the date of filing of the eviction petition, the eviction cannot be sought. In the decision referred (3) above while dealing with revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent ) Control Act 1960 it was held by the Apex Court that it was clear that the revisional jurisdiction vested in High Court under the provisions of the Rent Control Act is wider than Section 115 of the CPC and the High Court is entitled to satisfy itself as to the regularity of the proceedings, of the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed therein and if, on examination it appears to the High Court that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted back for reconsideration, it may pass such orders accordingly.

From the oral and documentary evidence available on record in all these matters, it is clear that Eknath Rao himself during his life time had been trying to evict the Revision Petitioners-tenants and even if the conduct of the tenants who have been tenants from sufficiently a long time is taken into consideration coupled with the relevant oral and documentary evidence available - PW-1, PW-2, RW-1 and also Exs.R-1 to R-16 etc., the ground of default raised in the facts and circumstances at he best can be said to be only technical and cannot be styled as conscious, deliberate intentional default so as to attract the expression ''wilful default'' within the meaning of Section 10 of the Act. Hence, I am of he opinion that the orders of the appellate authority in reversing the well-considered orders of the eviction made by the learned Rent Controller are not sustainable and they are liable to be set aside and accordingly the impugned orders in R.A. Nos. 178/97, 179/97 and 177/97 dated 16-3-2001 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Cause Courts at Hyderabad, are hereby set aside and the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. But however, in the facts and circumstances of the cases, no order as to costs.