APHC010139872013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3582/2013 Between: 1. VENNA GOPALA KRISHNA, S/O. SESHAIAH, R/O. D.NO. 29- 33-2, 2ND FLOOR, DEVI CHOWK, VENNA VARI STREET, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. PANDIRI NEHRU, S/o. Pandiri Veerayya, Prop: M/s. Raju Medical & General Stores, Door No. 29-33-2, Ground Floor, Devi Chowk, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toto allow the CRP and set aside the order dated 31.10.2012 passed in RCA.No.14/2010 on the file of the Appellate Authority under Rent Control Act (Principal Senior Civil Jduge) Rajahmundry, EAst Godavari District, and confirm order dated 26.07.2010 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, in RCC.No. 25/2007 IA NO: 1 OF 2013(CRPMP 4485 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delayof 157 days in representing the CRP IA NO: 2 OF 2013(CRPMP 4793 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to expidate the hearing of the CRP by fixing an early date in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Y SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. M V SURESH The Court made the following: -2- CRP.No.3582 of 2013 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3582 OF 2013 ORDER : 1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed in RCA.No.14 of 2010 on the file of Appellate Authority under Rent Control Act Rajahmundry. The Appellate Authority set aside the order dated 26.07.2010 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal – Cum – Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry in RCC.No.25 of 2007. 2. The petitioner is the landlord and RCC.No.25 of 2007 seeking eviction of the respondent from shop room in the ground floor bearing D.No.29-33-2. The learned Judge had allowed the RCC.No.25 of 2007 and directed the respondent to handover vacant possession of the schedule property to the petitioner. 3. The Tribunal had held that the respondent was irregular in payment of agreed monthly rental to the petitioner and gave a categorical finding that the respondent is a willful defaulter of rents. Accordingly, the RCC was allowed. 4. The appellate authority had set aside the order passed by giving a finding that the petitioner had failed to prove that he required the premises for his bonafide occupation. It was also held that -3- CRP.No.3582 of 2013 the petitioner failed to prove that the respondent committed willful default in payment of rents. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the material on record. 6. The categorical admission of RW.1 with regard to receipt of the demand notice which was not replied by the respondent. Non reply to the demand notice i.e., Ex.A2 by the respondent would indicate the scant regard the respondent had for the statutory notice. 7. The categorical admission of RW.1 in the cross examination that the respondent did not pay rentals on monthly basis but sent them intermittently. This admission has swayed the balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner before the Rent Control Tribunal in RCC.No.25 of 2007. 8. The Appellate Authority has given undue credence to the deposit which was lying with the petitioner. The appellate authority has concluded that retention of Rs.22,500/- as advance by the petitioner would go against the petitioner’s ground of willful default for eviction. -4- CRP.No.3582 of 2013 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Fatima Bi Vs. Mohd.Akbar Hussain1, this Court held that payment of rents at irregular intervals would amount to willful default and that accepting rents by the landlord without any protest cannot cure the said defect. Nalla Veera Venkata raju Maheswara Rao Vs. Kondapalli Surya Kumari2, this Court held that advance amount cannot be adjusted towards arrears of rent. J.Narahari Chari Vs. B.R.Jain3, this Court held that the stand taken by the tenant that landlord is in the habit of collecting rent at irregular intervals cannot discharge the obligation of the tenant in payment of rents on a regular basis. 10. The short point for consideration is whether the order passed by the appellate authority deserves to be set aside for having held that retention of deposit by the petitioner would not entitle the petitioner to brand the respondent as a willful defaulter. 11. On the facts of this case, the petitioner sought for eviction on two grounds that the premises is required for the personal dues of the petitioner and eviction is sought on the ground of willful default by the respondent. 1 Law Finder Doc Id#79206 2 Law Finder Doc Id#2023322 3 Law Finder Doc Id#414153 -5- CRP.No.3582 of 2013 12. Ex.A2 is amply clear and the evidence of the petitioner is categorically clear that the premises which is under occupation by the respondent is required for personal dues of the petitioner. The respondent has not replied to the statutory legal notice, as such, the stand taken by the respondent that the premises is not required for the personal use of the petitioner after filing of the RCC.No.25 of 2007 cannot sustain the scrutiny of law and logic. 13. The finding of the Appellate authority that the petitioner cannot construe the respondent as a willful defaulter as the petitioner had within the deposited the amount is erroneous. 14. A tenant is entrusted with the property by the landlord on the understanding that the tenant would pay the monthly lease rental. The tenant would also deposit certain amount towards assuring the landlord of rectifying any damage to the property at the time of vacation of the property. The advance amount is generally refunded to the tenant after the expiry of the lease term. The landlord would also be entitled to adjust the deposit amount for meeting any expenses incurred on account of repairs to the property. 15. Payment of rents irregularly would have to be considered as willful default by all means and the acceptance of rents at -6- CRP.No.3582 of 2013 irregular intervals by the landlord as paid by the tenant without any protest cannot be held against the landlord. The circumstances under which the landlord had accepted the rents at irregular intervals is a different issue altogether. 16. The plight of the landlord after having handed over the valuable property for occupation by the tenant and eagerly waiting for the tenant to pay rents at his convenience cannot entitle the landlord to continue in occupation of the property by claiming that there is no willful default and that the landlord also has accepted the rents as paid by him. 17. On these considerations, the judgment and decree passed in RCA.No.14 of 2010 is hereby set aside and the order passed in RCC.25 of 2007 is hereby upheld. In view of the matter, the respondents shall have to vacate and handover the premises to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. 18. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dated 24.09.2025 KGM -7- CRP.No.3582 of 2013 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3582 OF 2013 Dated 24.09.2025 -8- CRP.No.3582 of 2013 KGM