LexK.A. RAMESH AND ORS. versus SMT. SUSHEELA BAI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B K.A. RAMESH AND ORS. v. SMT. SUSHEELA BAI AND ORS. FEBRUARY 13,1998 [S.B. MAJMUDAR AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.] Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960: C Section 10(2)(i)-Proviso-Section I I-Applicability of Rent-Wilful default in payment of -Decree passed for-Validity a/- Arrears of rent-Tenant's grievance that receipts not issued for rent paid- Telegram sent by tenant to landlord for issue of receipts-Landlord's denial- D Thereafter tenant sent a bank draft for the entire arrears-Draft sent before ,._ filing of eviction petition-Accepted and realised by landlord during the eviction proceedings-Held there was no default in payment of rent much less wilfal default-Eviction proceedings became infructuous and liable to be dismissed. E Rent-Failure to pay during pendency of proceedings-Right of F G landlord to get further proceedings stopped-Held on facts the landlord waived his right to enforce his statutory right under sections 11 (/) and (4). CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.826of1998. From the Judgment and Order dated 19.8.97 of the Andhra Pardesh High Court in CRP I 028 of 1997. K. Ramakrishna Reddy, P.S. Narasimha and V.G. Pragasam for the Appellants. Subodh Markandaya, Ashok Kumar Sharma, Alok Singh and Mrs. Chitra Markandaya for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : H Leave granted. 892 K.A. RAMESH v. SUSHEELA BAI 893 With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the appeal was A .--< finally heard today and is being disposed of by this order . ·-· The appellants are the tenants in the premises situated at Secunderabad in Andhra Pradesh. Provisions of A.P. Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 ['the Act' for short] govern the relationship between the appellants tenants and the respondent-landlords . B ., The short question is whether the appellant-tenants were wilful defaulters in payment of rent on which ground the decree for possession has been passed by the courts below under Section 10 of the Act. The arrears ofrent were from July 1988 to Dec;_ember 1988. The appellants sent a telegram c dated 17th December 1988 to the respondent-landlords calling upon them to issue receipts for the rent which they had already paid apprehending that the respondent many make out a case for default in payment of rent for these - relevant months. The landlords responded by giving reply dated 19th December 1988 stating that the rent was not paid and it was not correct to say that the receipts were not issued despite payment of rent for the relevant months. D --< Under these circumstances the appellant sent a bank draft for the entire _, arrears on 02nd February 1989. Presumably having knowledge that the bank draft was being sent to them, the respondents filed an Eviction Petition on 06th February 1989 and it appears that on the next date the bank draft reached them. They got it encased. On the ground that the appellants had committed E wilful default in payment of rent for the relevant months the eviction proceedings ., were prosecuted by the respondents before the authority. These eviction proceedings were under sub-section (2) (i) of Section 10 of the Act. The said provision reads as under: ', "IO. Eviction of tenants:- F :r (1) ................ (2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satisfied- G J- (i) that the tenant nor paid or tendered the rent due by him in respect ./' of the building within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord or in the absence of any such agreement, by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable; or H 894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] l S.C.R. A (ii) ............. .. B c D (iii) ............ .. (iv) .............. . (v) ............... . (vi) ............. .. The Controller shall make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building and if the Controller is not so satisfied, he shall make an order rejecting the application: ........... . There is a proviso to the said Section which reads as under: ''Provided that in any case falling under clause (i), if the Controller is satisfied that the tenant's default to pay or tend
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.