Case: Puwada Venkateswara Rao Vs. Chidamana Venkata Ramana

The defendant-appellant had taken a house on rent under a registered lease dated February 10, 1958, on a monthly rent of Rs. 250 for a period of five years for running a lodging house. It is admitted by both sides that in February, 1963, the lease had expired. According to the landlord respondent, the defendant-appellant had continued to hold over a as a tenant "on the same terms" by which he, presumably, meant that it was a month to month tenancy.2.The Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into operation before the lease expired.3. The appellant seemed to be constantly making defaults in payments of rent. The landlord respondent had, therefore, to file a suit for arrears of rent in the Court of District Munsif, Visakhapatnam, which was decreed on April 4, 1962. The landlord respondent had to file a petition on April 21, 1962, under Section 10 of the Act before the Rent Controller, Visakhapatnam for the eviction of the appellant as no rent was paid from December 1, 1961 to March 31, 1962. There was a compromise on October 12, 1962. The appellant, however, wilfully defaulted again in payments of rent from September, 1963 to April, 1964. A notice dated April 8, 1964, was sent by registered post by the landlord respondent to the appellant terminating his tenancy and calling upon him to pay up the arrears of rent and vacate the house by the end of April, 1964. This came back with the endorsement that the appellant was refusing to accept it. On April 9, 1964, the respondent filed another petition under Section 10 of the Act before the Rent Controller of Visakhapatnam who ordered the eviction of the appellant after holding all the flimsy defences of the appellant to be unsubstantiated. The Subordinate Judge of Visakhapatnam dismissed the tenants appeal on October 23, 1968. The appellants revision application to the High Court was also rejected on August 19, 1969.

Reasoning: 7. In the case before us, the respondent landlord relied upon a provision for special summary proceedings for eviction of tenants under an Act which contains all the requirements for those proceedings. We, therefore, think that the learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court had correctly applied the principle laid down by a Division Bench decision of that Court. He rightly distinguished such a case from Mangilals case (supra) where an entirely different kind of provision of another Act in another State was being considered by this Court. The Division Bench decision of the High Court, applied by the learned Judge, had, we think, enunciated the correct principle.The two decisions are reconcilable. The Calcutta High Court applied a rebuttable presumption which had not been repelled by any evidence. In the Bombay case, the presumption had been held to have been rebutted by the evidence of the defendant on oath so that it meant that the plaintiff could not succeed without further evidence. The Andhra Pradesh High Court had applied the ratio decidendi of Bombay case because the defendant-appellant before us had deposed that he had not received the notice. It may be that, on a closer examination of evidence on record, the Court could have reached the conclusion that the defendant had full knowledge of the notice and had actually refused it knowingly. It is not always necessary, in such cases, to produce the postman who tried to effect service. The denial of service by a party may be found to be incorrect from its own admissions or conduct. We do not think it necessary to go into this question any further as we agree with the High Court on the first point argued before us.