M. Naresh Kumar Vs. B. Nagalaxmi
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 14869 of 1996
Petitioner: M. Naresh Kumar
Respondent: B. Nagalaxmi
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 14869 of 1996
Judges: S.P. BHARUCHA & V.N. KHARE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 23, 1998
Head Note:
RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION
A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960
Section 22 – Revision – Rent controller and appellate authority’s findings on fact that tender of rent at regular intervals of 3 months has been developed as a practice -Notice by land lady’s advocate to pay rent regularly does not correct the irregularity- Rent so tendered, accepted by land – lady -Last default, imme-diately before filing eviction suit only of two months. Held that High Court ought not to have interfered with the findings of courts below. Appeal allowed. (Para 4)
A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960
Section 22 – Revision – Rent controller and appellate authority’s findings on fact that tender of rent at regular intervals of 3 months has been developed as a practice -Notice by land lady’s advocate to pay rent regularly does not correct the irregularity- Rent so tendered, accepted by land – lady -Last default, imme-diately before filing eviction suit only of two months. Held that High Court ought not to have interfered with the findings of courts below. Appeal allowed. (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. This appeal by special leave assails the correctness of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on a civil revision petition under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960.
2. The respondent-landlady had filed a petition for eviction against the appellant-tenant on the ground, inter alia, that he had committed wilful default in payment of rent for the months of September, October and November 1983. The Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority held against the landlady, finding that for seven or eight years the tenant had been sending rent once every two or three months and the landlady had not protest-ed; thus, a practice had developed between the parties to pay and receive the rent at irregular intervals. There was, therefore, no wilful default in payment of rent for September and October 1983. The question of payment of rent for November 1983 did not arise because it fell due only after the eviction petition was filed.
3. The High Court took into account a letter dated 27-10-1980 sent by the landlady’s advocates in reply to a notice addressed by the tenant. Therein the landlady’s advocates stated : “Please direct your client to send the rents regularly every month. If your client commits any default in future, our client will not condone the same”. The High Court found that, in spite of this notice, the tenant had “repeated the payment of rent on irregular intervals”. This amounted, in its view, to wilful default as he had been put on notice that in case he repeated the practice, he would be liable to face the consequences.
4. It would appear that the High Court did not take account of the fact that the letter written by the advocates for the landla-dy was dated 27-10-1980 and that even thereafter, until the eviction petition was filed on 2-12-1983, rent had been paid and accepted at the same irregular intervals. In other words, earlier practice had continued. The High Court ought not to have inter-fered, in the circumstances, with the findings of the authorities below. The High Court also does not appear to have taken note of the fact found that the default, if any, prior to the filing of the eviction petition was only of two months and not three.
5. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order under appeal is set aside and the revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
1. This appeal by special leave assails the correctness of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on a civil revision petition under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960.
2. The respondent-landlady had filed a petition for eviction against the appellant-tenant on the ground, inter alia, that he had committed wilful default in payment of rent for the months of September, October and November 1983. The Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority held against the landlady, finding that for seven or eight years the tenant had been sending rent once every two or three months and the landlady had not protest-ed; thus, a practice had developed between the parties to pay and receive the rent at irregular intervals. There was, therefore, no wilful default in payment of rent for September and October 1983. The question of payment of rent for November 1983 did not arise because it fell due only after the eviction petition was filed.
3. The High Court took into account a letter dated 27-10-1980 sent by the landlady’s advocates in reply to a notice addressed by the tenant. Therein the landlady’s advocates stated : “Please direct your client to send the rents regularly every month. If your client commits any default in future, our client will not condone the same”. The High Court found that, in spite of this notice, the tenant had “repeated the payment of rent on irregular intervals”. This amounted, in its view, to wilful default as he had been put on notice that in case he repeated the practice, he would be liable to face the consequences.
4. It would appear that the High Court did not take account of the fact that the letter written by the advocates for the landla-dy was dated 27-10-1980 and that even thereafter, until the eviction petition was filed on 2-12-1983, rent had been paid and accepted at the same irregular intervals. In other words, earlier practice had continued. The High Court ought not to have inter-fered, in the circumstances, with the findings of the authorities below. The High Court also does not appear to have taken note of the fact found that the default, if any, prior to the filing of the eviction petition was only of two months and not three.
5. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order under appeal is set aside and the revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
