A Supreme Court Judgment on the payment of rent.

Mariyam Begum v Basheerunnisa Begum and ors.         
Appellant: Mariyam Begum
Respondent: Basheerunnisa Begum and ors
Date: 26/09/2001
Bench:S.S.M. Quadri
Facts: In the instance case the respondent filed a report in the court in IInd Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, for eviction of the appellant from the premises of Bazar Street, Hyderabad, (for short ‘the building’) on various grounds including default in payment of rent for the period — May 1, 1983 to October 31, 1983 under Section 10 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’). While the said case was pending, she filed RC 20/85 before the Rent Controller seeking eviction of the respondent under Section 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Act on the ground that she has subject a portion of the suit premises to the second respondent therein who is carrying on the business of supplying building material in the name of and style of M/s Shyama Traders. She also filed RC 115/84 in the Court of Principal Rent Controller on the ground that the respondent committed wilful default in payment of rent for the period — November 1, 1983 to 31st March, 1984, under Section 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Act. While these cases were pending the first case, RC 244/83, was dismissed on April 4, 1988. The order of dismissal in that R.C. has become final. In so far as the RC 115/84 (filed on the ground of wilful default) is concerned, the learned Rent Controller found that the respondent committed wilful default in payment of rent and ordered eviction. That order was upheld in appeal as well as in revision by the High Court. It is form this order Civil Appeal 1716/97 arises.
Contentions: Ms.K.Amreshwari, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant contends that non-payment of rent during the said period — November 1, 1983 to March 31, 1984 — was due to the reason that I.A. filed in RC 244/83 under Section 11 of the Act was pending before the learned Rent Controller, the appellant therefore thought that she need not deposit the rent till the matter was decided by the Court, therefore the default in payment of rent cannot be treated as wilful default. The learned counsel submits that immediately after passing the order on April 28, 1984, the appellant paid the amount due under Exbts. R1 and R2 on May 8, 1984 and July 17, 1984. Thus the default in payment of rent cannot be treated as wilful default and therefore the order of the High Court under challenge confirming the order of the appellate court is fit to be set aside.
Conclusion: In the view we have taken in this appeal we do not consider it necessary to go into the other question, of subletting, in regard to the very same premises which is subject matter of Civil Appeal 1715/1997. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Decision:  The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
SUBMITTED BY:- SHUBHANGI GUPTA.