HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR C.R.P.No.1032 OF 2007 ORDER : The petitioner is the landlord. There was a huge default running from 01.07.1997 till 31.08.2001 in payment of rents by the tenant to the petitioner-landlord. The petitioner-landlord consequently laid the tenancy case in R.C.No.179 of 2001. The tenant contended that there has been the practice of the landlord receiving rents at irregular intervals. The learned Rent Controller was not agreeable with the contention of the tenant that the landlord was receiving rents at irregular intervals and that the tenant therefore could not be considered to have committed wilful default. The learned Rent Controller consequently allowed the rent control case and ordered the eviction of the tenant. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant preferred appeal before the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The learned Additional Chief Judge held that there was a practice of the landlord receiving rents at irregular intervals. He further held that the landlord ought to have issued a notice to the tenant cautioning the tenant to pay rents at regular intervals lest the tenant should suffer the legal consequences. On the ground that such a notice was not issued by the landlord to the tenant and also on the ground that the irregular payment of rents was on account of the practice between the landlord and the tenant, the learned Additional Chief Judge considered that the tenant cannot be held to be guilty of wilful default. He consequently reversed the finding of the learned Rent Controller and allowed the Rent Control Appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is laid. The petitioner examined his representative as the only witness on his side. The respondent in his turn examined himself as the only witness. As many as 8 rent receipts under Exs.R.1 to R.7 and R.14 and as many as 6 money order coupons under Exs.A.8 to A.13 were filed. It is admitted by the landlord himself that rents were not collected regularly and that it has been the habit of the landlord to receive rents as and when tendered by the tenant at different intervals. Exs.R.1 to R.7 and R.14 show that the tenant was not paying the rents at regular intervals. Admittedly, the landlord never protested when rents were tendered at different intervals. The landlord thus certainly acquiesced for the payment of rents at different intervals. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh held in Ramala Ramnaiah v Moostiala Narasimha Rao[1] that where there is a practice of payment of rents at irregular intervals and where the landlord has been receiving the same without protest, the payment of rents at irregular intervals cannot be considered to be a wilful default. The legal position being that, a landlord who receives rents tendered by the tenant at irregular intervals cannot later turn round and claim that there was wilful default on the part of the tenant. The landlord in the present case who received rents from the tenant at irregular intervals, as evidenced by Exs.R.1 to R.7 and R.14, cannot now turn round and claim that there was wilful default on the part of the tenant. It is not as though the tenant has perpetually stopped payment of rents. The tenant has been paying rents at his convenience and the landlord has been receiving the same without any protest. Such a landlord cannot now assert that there was wilful default on the part of the tenant. The learned Additional Chief Judge correctly pointed out that when there is practice between the landlord and the tenant to pay and receive rent at irregular intervals, payment of rent at irregular intervals is not tantamount to wilful default. I agree with the contention of Sri M.Roop Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/tenant that it is a case where although the tenant was paying rent at irregular intervals, there was no wilful default on the part of the tenant in view of the conduct of the landlord. The finding of the appellate Court, therefore, is perfectly justified, which does not need interference. This revision accordingly is found to be devoid of merits and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR 19th January, 2011 PNV [1] 1996(4) ALT, 666