Neelam Williams vs Harun Pasha

Heard.

The petitioner is the tenant. The respondent-landlord filed a case in RCC No.3 of 1989 on the file of Principal District Munsif (Rent Controller), Eluru against the petitioner-tenant for eviction on the grounds of wilful default and bona fide requirement. The Rent Controller gave a finding in favour of the landlord stating that the landlord has proved wilful default, but farther held that he is not entitled for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement in view of Section 10(4)(ii) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (in short ''the Act''), as the building in question is being used as an educational institute and it has been recognised by the Government. The tenant did not prefer any appeal against that order. However, the landlord preferred an appeal before the appellate Court in CMA No.2 of 1994, challenging the order of the Rent Controller in RCC No.3 of 1989, refusing the eviction on the ground that there is an educational institution in the building in question. The appellate Court allowed the appeal and directed the eviction of the petitioner-tenant. In these circumstances, it is the tenant, who has come up before this Court in this revision petition.

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-tenant strenuously contended that both the Courts below are in error in holding that there is a wilful default on the part of the petitioner-tenant in paying the rent. At any rate, the Courts also are in error in ordering eviction against the petitioner, since the petitioner is running an educational institution in the building in question and it is recognised by the Government. On the other hand, the Counsel appearing for the respondent-landlord supported both the orders of Courts below.

As I have noticed above, against the finding of the Rent Controller in RCC No.3 of 1989, that the petitioner-tenant was a wilful defaulter in paying the rent, the tenant did not prefer an appeal before the appellate Court challenging that finding and it is only the landlord who preferred an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller before the appellate Court, challenging refusal of granting eviction in his favour. However, the appellate Court again gave a finding, though it was not necessary, that the tenant committed wilful default by holding that Ex.B3 and Ex.B4 produced by the tenant are forged documents. It was the case of the petitioner-tenant in the lower Courts that under Ex.B3 (voucher), he has paid Rs.5,600/- on 1-11-1988 in respect of the rent for the period from March, 1988 to October, 1988 at Rs.350/- per month and advance payment of rent for eight months from November, 1988 to June, 1989. Ex.B4 is another voucher, which the tenant relied upon, contending that an amount of Rs.1,750/-was paid on 1-11-1989, representing the rent at the rate of Rs.350/- per month for the period from July, 1989 to November, 19S9. Both the Courts below held that Exs.B3 and B4 do not contain the signature of the landlord or his brother. The appellate Court also held that in Ex.B3, the figure ''9'' in the year 1989 has been altered into ''8'', so as to read as ''1988''. On these basis, they disbelieved Exs.B3 and B4 as fabricated documents and ultimately held that there was wilful default on the part of the petitioner-tenant in paying the rent to the respondent-landlord. This being a finding of fact, do not call for interference at the hands of this Court u/s 115 of CPC.

The lower appellate Court also held that u/s 10(4) of the Act, it is provided that no order of eviction shall be passed against the tenant under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act, and sub-section (3) of Section 10 provides eviction on bona fide requirement. But in the instant case, eviction is being ordered on the ground of wilful default and not on the basis of bona fide requirement and hence eviction can be ordered. From the reading of Section 10(4) of the Act, I find that the reasoning of the lower appellate Court is correct. Relevant portions of Section 10(4) of the Act, reads as under :

"(4) No order for eviction shall be passed under sub-section (3)--

.....

(ii) in respect of any building which has been left for use as an educational institution and is actually being used as such, provided that the institution has been recognised by the Government or any authority empowered by them in this behalf, so long as such recognition continues."

From the opening line of Section 10(4) of the Act, it is clear that no order for eviction shall be passed under sub-section (3). But sub-section (3) of Section 10 provides for eviction of the tenant on the bona fide requirement of the landlord. From this it follows that no order of eviction shall be passed on the basis of a bona fide requirement in respect of a building, which has been left for the use of an educational institution and such educational institution, is recognised by the Government. In the instant case, the educational institution run by the petitioner-tenant is recognised by the Government But Section 10(4) of the Act, is not made a defence in favour of the tenant, whenever eviction is sought on the basis of wilful default. In these circumstances, I find that the petitioner-tenant is liable to be evicted on the ground of wilful default. However, the interests of petitioner-tenant would be safeguarded if I give sufficient time to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the premises, since it is a school and examinations normally would be over in the month of March and April and some time would be required for publishing the results and that would go till the end of June. In these circumstances, I pass the order as under :

The CPR is dismissed. The petitioner-tenant is granted time till the end of July, 1999 to deliver the vacant possession of the premises, subject to the petitioner-tenant paying all the arrears of rent as on today, within a period of two months from today and he shall go on paying the rent till the end of July, 1999. In case of default, the decree becomes executable forthwith. No costs.