Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Proluguralla Koteswara Rao vs Maddi Hemalatha Devi on 27 October, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(1)ALD145, 1997(6)ALT770
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner in this Revision Petition is the original tenant of the premises in question and the respondent is the landlord thereof. The finding recorded by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Guntur, in I.A.No. 616 of 1995 in RCA.No. 15 of 1987 by order dated 3-7-1995 that the tenant was not entitled for a permission to deposit Rs.3,360/- towards rent upto 31-3-1995 into Court, is challenged in this revision petition.
2. The learned Judge before arriving at the aforesaid conclusion took into consideration that the Eviction Petition being RCC.No.69 of 1982 which was allowed by the Rent Controller, Guntur, was challenged by preferring an appeal being RCA.No.15 of 1987. The said appeal was decided against the landlord against which the landlord filed CRP.No.2650 of 1993 before this High Court which was pending. The tenant originally filed RCC.No.44 of 1989 under Sections of the Rent Control Act for permission to deposit the rent into the Court which was allowed and the tenant was permitted to deposit the rent in RCA.No.15 of 1987. But, according to the landlord, the tenant did not comply with the direction to deposit the rent in accordance with the order passed in RCC No.44 of 1989. The learned Judge also took into consideration that RCC No.52 of 1993 was filed by the tenant without complying with the orders passed in RCC.No.44 of 1989, for permission to deposit the rent which was dismissed.
3. On the above facts, the learned Prl. Subordinate Judge, Guntur, held that the tenant could not be permitted to deposit the rent to the credit of RCA.No.15 of 1987 and eventually held that the petitioner-tenant was not entitled for permission to deposit the rent of Rs.3,360/- which was due for the period upto 31-3-1995.
4. The tenant in his affidavit filed in support of CMP.No.19095 of 1995 in C.R.P.No.4200 of 1995 stated that RCA.No.15 of 1987 filed by him was allowed on 27-4-1993 by which the order of eviction was set-aside. During the pendency of the said RCA.No.15 of 1987, the husband of the land lady died and his legal representatives were brought on record. After the disposal of the said RCA, the tenant called upon the respondent (landlord) to receive the rent and pass receipt, but the respondent refused to receive the same. The tenant was informed by his advocate that the rent could no longer be deposited in RCA.No. 15/87 as the same had already been disposed of and the advocate advised the tenant to remit the rent due and payable by money order. Accordingly, the tenant remitted the rent for the months of April, May and June, 1993 to the landlord by money order. But on 25-5-1993, the same was returned with an endorsement 'left'. The tenant, therefore, again remitted the rent for the said months by money order to the landlord. But, again on 27-7-1993, the same was returned with the same endorsement. Thus, according to the tenant, as the respondent evaded to receive the money orders, he got a notice issued to the respondent asking her to name a bank so that the tenant could deposit the arrears of rent and the current month's rent. But the respondent failed to give any reply to the said notice. The tenant was, therefore, compelled to file RC.No.52 of 1993 on the file of the Rent Controller, Guntur, for permission to deposit the rents into the Court. The respondent opposed the said application on the ground that as the tenant failed to comply with the direction of the Court in RCC No.44 of 1989 by not depositing the rent in RCA.No.15 of 1987, the petition seeking permission to deposit the rent in the Court was not maintainable. The tenant, therefore, filed IA.No.616 of 1995 in RCA.No.15 of 1987 praying for issue of a challan to deposit the rent in RCA.No.15 of 1987. The respondent opposed the said application also and the learned Judge of the lower Court, according to the tenant, erroneously dismissed I.A.No.616 of 1995. Aggrieved by the said order, the tenant has made the present Revision Petition.
5. After hearing the learned Counsels for the rival parties at length and after going through the contents of the orders passed by the lower Court in various proceedings referred to above, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant that the tenant was always ready and willing to pay the rent as directed by the Court, but owing to the disabilities created as explained by the tenant in the affidavit dated 24-10-1995 he could not deposit the arrears of rent as well as the current rent regularly. The predicament of the tenant as reflected from the averments made in the affidavit as well as from the orders passed in various proceedings which prevented him from depositing the rent cannot be overlooked. It was the procedural hierarchy which came in the way of the tenant. The so called inaction on part of the tenant was genuine and was not of the making of the tenant. The tenant, therefore, succeeds in establishing that he was always ready and willing to pay the rent regularly to the landlord, but for the procedural hierarchy as discussed above.
6. In accordance with the directions given by the learned Rent Controller, Guntur in RCC.No.44 of 1989 dated 27-11-1989 the tenant deposited the rent upto the end of March, 1993 in RCA.No.15 of 1987, but after the dismissal of RCA.No.15 of 1987 since the respondent-landlord refused to collect the same on one hand and on the other hand since no future rent could be deposited in RCA.No.15 of 1987 on account of the said proceedings having been finally disposed of, the tenant had to remit the rent by money order. The tenant, in accordance with his advocate's advice, remitted the rent by money order to the respondent on three occasions, but the same was not accepted by the respondent which made it necessary for the tenant to take further proceedings in the Court for securing permission to deposit the rent in the Court.
7. From the facts being as stated above, there is no reason why any inference be drawn against the tenant that he was a wilful defaulter. The learned Judge has obviously taken an erroneous view of the matter without appreciating various steps taken by the tenant for complying with the directions relating to payment of rent.
8. Before concluding, a note is required to be taken of the fact that the tenant was permitted by way of an interim direction in the present Revision Petition to deposit the arrears of rent in the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Guntur to the credit of RCA.No.15 of 1987 on or before 20-1-1996. The tenant was also directed to continue to deposit the rents every month to the credit of RCA.No.15 of 1987 on or before 15th of the succeeding month. Accordingly, the arrears of rent were deposited by the tenant and the same has also been withdrawn by the landlord.
9. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I believe that there is no reason why the impugned order should not be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed and set aside and the tenant is permitted to continue to deposit monthly rent to the credit of RCA.No. 15 of 1987. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.