THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4761 of 2007 Date:04.12.2009 Between: Maddi Ranganayakulu. ..Petitioner and Ch. VenkataSubramanya Babu. ..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4761 of 2007 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against order dated 28.08.2007 in R.C.C.M.A.No.39 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, wherein the said appeal filed by the petitioner/tenant was dismissed confirming order dated 26.07.2006 in R.C.C.No.32 of 2001 passed by the Rent Controller- cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, directing the tenant to vacate and deliver the schedule premises to the landlord on or before 28.10.2007. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant and the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord and perused the records. 3. The respondent herein/landlord filed R.C.C.No.32 of 2001 under Section 10(2)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’) for eviction of the petitioner herein/tenant on the ground of willful default in payment of rents. According to the respondent/landlord, the petition schedule shop bearing No.27-16-152 (non-residential premises) at Besant Road, Vijayawada, was taken on lease by the petitioner/tenant for carrying on cloth business in the name of City Cloth Stores on a monthly rent of Rs.500/- and the tenancy was from month to month. The respondent/landlord alleges that the rents were paid up to the month of February, 2000 on 08.03.2000 under receipt, but thereafter, the petitioner/tenant committed default in payment of the rents and failed to pay the rents up to 31.12.2000. He further alleges that when he demanded payment of arrears, the petitioner/tenant sent the rents for January, 2001 by money order (M.O.) and the M.O. was not received by him. Subsequently, the respondent/landlord issued a notice under Ex.A-1, dated 26.4.2001, calling upon the petitioner/tenant to pay the rents immediately. The said notice was received by the petitioner/tenant on 28.4.2001 and there was no immediate response from him. Thereafter, the respondent/landlord filed R.C.C.No.32 of 2001 on 03.05.2001. The petitioner/tenant is said to have deposited the arrears of rent by way of demand draft under Ex.A-4, which is stated to be still lying in the Court, without being encashed. 4. The petitioner/tenant, after receiving the summons in the R.C.C., filed a counter denying that there was any default, much less willful default, in payment of rents. According to him, he paid the rents for the period from 01.03.2000 to 31.12.2000 regularly every month in usual course, but did not obtain receipts as negotiations, for enhancement of rent, were in progress. He alleges that as he was not agreeable to the enhancement, as proposed by the respondent/landlord, the respondent/landlord refused to receive the rents from January, 2001 onwards and therefore, he was constrained to send the same by M.O., which was not accepted by the respondent/landlord. He would further plead that by the date of receiving summons and by the date of his first appearance before the Court below, he had remitted the rents into Court on 19.05.2001 itself by way of demand draft-Ex.A-4 and also issued reply notice-Ex.A-3 to legal notice-Ex.A-1, and therefore, there is no question of default much less willful default, on his part. 5. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A- 18 were marked on behalf of the respondent/landlord. R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B-1 – day book for 1999-2000, Exs.B-2 to B-12 - the day-book extracts, B-13 to B-15 - M.O. coupons for remittance of rent from January to March, 2001, Ex.B-16 – xerox copy of lease deed and Ex.B-17 – xerox copy of acknowledgement of registration of firm were marked on behalf of the petitioner/tenant. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Rent Controller by order dated 26.07.2006, allowed the R.C.C. holding that the petitioner/tenant committed default in payment of rent and directed the petitioner/tenant to vacate the premises and handover the same to the respondent/landlord within two months. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/tenant filed an appeal in R.C.C.M.A.No.39 of 2006. By the impugned order dated 28.08.2007, the learned appellate authority dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller with a direction to the petitioner/tenant to vacate the petition schedule premises and deliver the same to the respondent/landlord on or before 28.10.2007. Hence, the present revision petition by the petitioner/tenant. 7. It is not disputed that the petitioner herein was a tenant of the schedule premises of a non-residential shop room situate in Besant Road, Vijayawada, having taken the same on lease from the respondent/landlord on a monthly rent of Rs.500/-. It is also not in dispute that the tenancy was from month to month and the rent was payable every month and there was a practice of passing the receipts also for payment of rents. According to the respondent/landlord, the petitioner/tenant paid the rents regularly up to February, 2000 and committed default thereafter i.e., from March, 2000 and that he did not pay the rents till December, 2000. The respondent/landlord further contended that the petitioner/tenant sent the rents by M.O. for the months of January, February and March, 2001, which were refused in view of the arrears of rent for the earlier period from March, 2000 to December, 2000. The petitioner/tenant, on the other hand, contended that he was regularly paying the rents during the said period also every month, but did not obtain receipts as negotiations for enhancement of rent were in progress. The petitioner/tenant seeks to rely upon the entries-Exs.B-2 to B-12 in the day-book. Ex.B1-day book would show that he paid the rent during the period from March, 2000 to December, 2000. Ex.B1 is the day-book for the year 1999-2000. As rightly held by the Courts below, the entries in the day-book of the petitioner/tenant are self-serving and in the absence of receipts showing payment of rents, no reliance can be placed on the entries in the day-book maintained by the petitioner/tenant himself. The respondent/landlord disputed the genuineness of the said entries in Exs.B-2 to B-12. Even otherwise, the said entries are only self-serving and cannot be accepted as proof of payment of rents, especially when there is admittedly the practice of passing receipts. There is absolutely no reason as to why the petitioner/tenant has not obtained receipts for payment of the rents during the said period from March, 2000 to December, 2000, when admittedly, there was practice of passing the receipts. The explanation of the petitioner/tenant that receipts could not be passed as negotiations for enhancement of rent are underway, is to say the least, totally unconvincing. Even if there is any such enhancement, the respondent/landlord denies that there was any demand for enhancement of rent or that any negotiations in that regard were underway. Even if any such negotiations were in progress, absolutely there is no reason as to why the petitioner/tenant has not obtained receipts for payment of the rents in accordance with the existing practice. In the absence of any such receipts, the Courts below have rightly held that the petitioner/tenant has failed to show that he paid the rents for the disputed period and that he was not in arrears. 8. It is to be noted that when the practice was to pay the rents by hand and obtain receipts, the petitioner/tenant has chosen to send the rents for January, 2001 by M.O-Ex.B-13. It is not known as to what prompted the petitioner/tenant to remit the rent by M.O., contrary to the earlier practice. When the rent sent by M.O-Ex.B-13 was refused by the respondent/landlord, the petitioner/tenant has not taken any steps to file an application or at least to give any notice to the respondent/landlord nor did he file any application before the Court seeking permission to deposit the rents into Court. He sent the rent for February, 2001 also by M.O under Ex.B-14, which was also refused. Similarly, the rent for March, 2001 sent by M.O. under Ex.B-15 was also refused by the respondent/landlord. Even though the rent for three months were successively refused by the respondent/landlord, when the same was sent by M.O., the petitioner/tenant has not taken any steps to establish his bona fides. The respondent/landlord has given notice Ex.A-1 dated 26.04.2001, demanding payment of arrears of rent, of course, for the period from March, 2000 to December, 2000, which was received by the tenant under the acknowledgment - Ex.A- 2. It is only three weeks later on 19.05.2001, the petitioner/tenant issued a reply notice Ex.A-3 and also deposited the bankers cheque Ex.A-4 for the arrears of rent. The learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant would submit that, after giving notice Ex.A-1, the respondent/landlord rushed to the Court and filed the R.C.C. on 03.05.2001 within five days of notice, and, without giving any reasonable time to the petitioner/tenant. He would further submit that on 19.05.2001 itself, the petitioner/tenant deposited the rents into Court. Even before receiving the summons in the R.C.C., it is to be noted that the petitioner/tenant was in arrears of rent from March, 2000 to December, 2000 and the plea of the petitioner/tenant that he paid rents for the said period is rightly disbelieved by the Courts below. Even after the M.Os. sent by the petitioner/tenant for the period January, 2001 to March, 2001 were returned as refused, the petitioner/tenant has not taken any immediate steps to issue a notice to the respondent/landlord, for depositing the rents into Court. Ex.A-1 legal notice was issued by the respondent/landlord, in which, immediate compliance was called upon. The petitioner/tenant did not respond immediately to the demand contained in Ex.A-1 and only three weeks later, he issued a reply notice Ex.A-3 and obtained a bankers cheque Ex.A-4. The conduct of the petitioner/tenant disclosed supra does not show any bona fides on his part. He cannot find fault with the respondent/landlord for filing R.C.C. within a week of issuing notice under Ex.A-1. The evidence on record shows that the respondent/landlord has waited for almost ten months from March, 2000 to December, 2000, and he refused the M.Os. sent for the months of January, to March, 2001. Thereafter, he filed the R.C.C. only on 03.05.2001. The petitioner/tenant had, therefore, sufficient time to comply with the demand to pay the arrears of the rent. His conduct in not paying the arrears of the rent, in the circumstances, clearly amounts to willful default on his part. The fact that he obtained a bankers cheque-Ex.A-4 and deposited into the Court on 19.05.2001, even before receiving the summons in the R.C.C., makes no difference and does not obliterate the default, which had already been committed by him in payment of the rents. The Courts below have rightly held that the default on the part of the petitioner/tenant in payment of the rents, in the circumstances of the case, certainly amounts to willful default that would enable the respondent/landlord to seek eviction of the petitioner/tenant on the said ground. The impugned judgments of the Courts below directing eviction of the petitioner/tenant on the ground of willful default in payment of rents, does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, as the same do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. 9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The petitioner/tenant is granted time till 31.03.2010 to vacate the petition schedule premises and handover vacant possession of the same to the respondent/landlord. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 04th December, 2009 GHN