HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO C.R.P.NO.3646 OF 2012 And C.R.P.NO.3647 OF 2012 DATE: 04.06.2014 C.R.P.NO.3646 OF 2012 BETWEEN:
Nalabati Raghavendra Rao .. Petitioner And Vathumilli Bulliammai ` .. Respondent C.R.P.NO.3647 OF 2012 BETWEEN:
Nalabati Raghvendra Rao .. Petitioner And Vathumilli Bullaiammai and another ` .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO C.R.P.NO.3646 OF 2012 And C.R.P.NO.3647 OF 2012 COMMON ORDER:
These revisions are filed by the tenant against the common order dated 04.06.2012 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram in R.C.A.No.1 of 2011 and R.C.A.No.1 of 2012. R.C.A.NO.1 of 2011 was filed by the landlord aggrieved by the orders of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Ramachandrapuram in dismissing the counter claim for eviction of the tenant. Whereas, R.C.A.No.1 of 2012 was filed by the tenant aggrieved by the orders of the Rent Controller in dismissing the petition for deposit the monthly rents into the Court. The learned Senior Civil Judge allowed the R.C.A.No.1 of 2011 reversing the order of the Rent Controller in R.C.C.No.1 of 2010 ordering the eviction of the tenant, whereas the learned Senior Civil Judge confirmed the order of the Rent Controller in dismissing the rent deposit petition.
For the sake of convenience the parties herein are referred to as the landlord and tenant.
The revision petitioner in both the revisions is the tenant.
In RCC No.1 of 2010 was filed by the tenant. His case was that he took the petition schedule shop on oral lease from 1st respondent on 11.07.1980 for Rs.100/- monthly rent. The rent was enhanced from time to time. In February,1998 when the 1st respondent constructed new building in the place of tiled roof building in the petition schedule property and Rs.18,000/- advance was paid in February,1998. After completion of construction in June,1998, the tenant paid another Rs.10,000/- as advance to the 1st respondent. Thus, the advance amount paid is Rs.28,000/-. It was stated that the rent was enhanced to Rs.800/- in the new building and the same was regularly paid. In June, 2002 rent was further enhanced to Rs.1,000/- from Rs.800/-. While so, on 8-7-2005, respondent No.1 got issued legal notice for which a reply is given on 14.07.2005. As respondent No.1 is old lady, respondent No.2 is collecting the rents on her behalf. While so, on 13.07.2007 at the instance of respondents, the power supply was disconnected to the petition premises due to which the tenant sustained loss of Rs.100/- per day for engaging generator and also lost goodwill in the business. Hence, the tenant filed R.CC No.2 of 2007 for injunction and for other reliefs. The respondents refused to receive the rents. Hence, the tenant sent rents for August, 2007 to June,2008 by money orders dated 26.06.2008 by taking the commission amount. Rents for July, 2008 is sent by money order dated 5.8.2008 and the same was refused. Hence, the tenant filed petition to permit him to deposit rents into the Court.
The respondents/landlords filed counter claim contending that the tenant took the shop in January,2001 and he is not paying the rent from October,2004 and committed default in payment of rents. The tenant is not even paying the alleged rent of Rs.1,000/- for the last five years. Even during the pendency of R.C.C.No.2 of 2007, the tenant did not pay rents. The money orders sent by the tenant were received by respondent No.1. The tenant shall pay the rent on or before 5th of every month. As the tenant committed willful default, the respondents are entitled for eviction of the tenant. As the tenant committed pilferage of energy, the electricity Department removed the power connection.
The tenant filed reply stating that he is not a willful defaulter and that the counter claim is not maintainable.
During the course of trial, on behalf of the tenant, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 was examined and no documents were marked.
The learned Rent Controller after taking into consideration the evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the tenant as well as landlords failed to prove their respective cases, dismissed the petition filed by the tenant to deposit the rent into court and the counter claim filed by the landlords. Aggrieved by the same, the landlord filed RCA No.1 of 2011 against the dismissal of counter claim and the tenant filed RCA No.1 of 2012 against the dismissal of petition filed by the tenant to deposit the rent before the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram.
The learned Senior Civil Judge, after hearing both sides and after re-appreciating the evidence available on record, allowed the RCA No.1 of 2011 filed by the landlord ordering eviction of the tenant and dismissed the RCA No.1 of 2012 filed by the tenant. Hence, both the revision petitions are filed by the tenant aggrieved by the common judgment in RCA No.1 of 2011 and in R.C.No.1 of 2012.
Having heard the learned counsel on either side and on perusal of the material on record it is seen that the counter claim was filed by the landlord under Order 8 Rule 6A CPC contending that in view of the default committed by the respondent-tenant the landlord is entitled for eviction. It is not in dispute that there is no provision in the Rent Control Act for counter claim and that the Rent Control Act is special enactment. When a special law or a local law is silent in prescribing a particular procedure on any specific procedure, it must necessarily follow that the relevant provisions of CPC would be applied. Therefore, the Rent Appellant Court following the judgment of this Court in GANDHAM SATYANARAYANA v. SIRANGAM
[1]
SATYANARAYANA MURTHY held that when there is no provision in the Rent Control Act for counter claim, provisions in CPC can be made applicable and accordingly allowed the counter claim of the landlord. The Rent Appellate Court on evidence, also held that the tenant was not regular in payment of monthly rent, even as per his own admissions and he paid them at once for whole year under Ex.P.1 all on one date i.e. on 28.6.2008 and that he never issued any notice to the landlord to furnish her bank account number to deposit the rents in that account. Even during the pendency of the rent control proceedings, the tenant committed default in payment of rents. Thus, it is clear that the tenant has committed willful default in payment of rents.
Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the Rent Appellate Court has rightly allowed RCA No.1 of 2011 filed by the landlords and ordered the counter claim of the landlords and dismissed the RCA No.1 of 2012 filed by the tenant to permit him to deposit the rents. Accordingly, I do not see any ground to interfere with the well considered impugned order passed by the Rent Appellate Court.
Both the Civil Revision Petitions are meritless and are accordingly dismissed. The tenant is granted three months time to vacate the premises subject to giving undertaking that he would vacate the premises after expiry of time and shall continue to pay the rents regularly for the said period of three months. No costs.
date: 04.06.2014 Kvrm/KK RAO JUSTICE V. SURI APPA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO C.R.P.NO.3646 OF 2012 And C.R.P.NO.3647 OF 2012 DATE: 04.06.2014
[1] 1967 An. W.R 479