N. Srinivas Vs. K. Kamalamma

.....of default in payment of rent after institution of petition - rent prior to institution of petition received by landlord on protest - held, on ground of default in payment of rent prior to petition eviction can be ordered. - all india services act, 1951.sections 8 & 11 & a.p. buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control rules, 1961, rule 5: [v.v.s. rao, g. yethirajulu & g. bhavani prasad, jj] refusal by landlord to receive rent - deposit of rent in court - held, a tenant has the option to take recourse to section 8 in case of refusal or evasion by landlord to receive rent and if landlord were to not name a bank or refuse even the money order of rent, the tenant can deposit the rent in accordance with sub-rules (1) to (3) of rule 5. the notice to person entitled to rent and proper maintenance of accounts of such deposits under sub-rules (4) and (5) of rule 5 are solely dependent on compliance with sub-rule (3) by the tenant. the payment or deposit of rent under section 11 read with sub-rule (6) of rule 5 arises only in respect of a tenant who did not take recourse to section 8 or section 9 before an application for eviction has been made against him in respect of any rent in arrears by date of that application, whereas in respect of rent that becomes subsequently due since date of application for eviction, the tenant is bound to pay or deposit regularly until termination of proceedings in order to enable him to contest the application. any violation of section 11(1) to (3) and sub-rule (6) of rule 5 makes the tenant liable for the adverse consequences under sub-section (4) of section 11. thus, the provisions of section 11 and sub-rule (6) of rule 5 are intended only to ensure the payment and deposit of rent including arrears during pendency and till termination of proceedings for eviction. the forfeiture of right of tenant to contest in case of default is to protect the rights and interests of landlord pending such an application for eviction, but not to..........the petitioner relies on the decision of the supreme court in k.a. ramesh v. susheela bat, : [1998]1scr892 . learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand relies on certain decisions of the learned single judges of this court for the contrary proposition. the second point is a debatable one. even then, the wilful default in payment of rents prior to the filing of eviction petition is sufficient to evict the petitioner-tenant. no doubt, the finding in this regard is against the respondent-landlord. but the fact remains that the arrears of rent were received under protest as seen from ex.al and within a short time thereafter the landlord filed the eviction petition. hence, the plea of waiveror the like cannot be raised. it is true that the finding of the rent control court and the appellate court on the second point is in favour of the petitioner. but, as held by this court in b. ranganayakuhi and others v. matlnipalli nageswara rao, : air 1992 ap294 , the correctness of the adverse finding can be canvassed by the respondent. the wide language of section 22 of the andhra pradesh buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control act, i960 lends support to the principle laid down in the aforementioned decision b. ranganayakulu's case (supra). hence, the respondent is entilled to object to the finding recorded by the rent control court and the appellate court. there can be no doubt that the evidence on record justifies the inference that there was wilful default in payment of rent for about ten months prior to the filing of eviction petition. hence i see no merit in the revision petition. accordingly the revision petition is dismissed. no costs. four months time is granted for vacation of premises.