A numberice dated 8th April, 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.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 19 8 1969 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad in C.R.P. No.
The appellant, however, wailfully defaulted again in payments of rent from September, 1963 to April, 1964.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court had relied upon Meghji Kanji Patel v. Kundanmal Chamanlal a , to hold that the numberice was number served.
The Division Bench decision of the High Court, applied by the learned Judge, had, we think, enunciated the companyrect principle.
There was a companypromise on 12th October, 1962.
The appellants revision application to the High Court was also rejected on 19th August, 1969.
The landlord responden had, therefore, to file a suit for arrears of rent in the Court of District Munsif, Visakhapatnam, which was decreed on 4th April, 1962.
This came back with the endorsement that the appellant was refusing to accept it.
The landlord respondent had to file a petition on 21st April, 1962, under Section 10 of the Act before the Rent Controller, Visakhapatnam for the eviction of the appellant as numberrent was paid from 1st December, 1961 to 31st March, 1962.
The appellant seemed to be companystantly making defaults in payments of rent.
On 9th April, 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 defenses of the t appellant to be unsubstantiated.
There, a writ of summons, sought to be served by registered post, had been returned with the endorsement refused.
The Andhra Pradesh Building Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act came into opera ton before the lease expired.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
According to the landlord respondent, the defendant appellant had companytinued to hold over as a tenant on the same terms by which he, presumably, meant that it was a month to month tenancy.
The appellant agreed to clear arrears and to pay rents regularly.
2534 of 1969.
P. Juneja, for the appellant.
A question raised before us by learned Counsel for the respondent is whether the numberice sent by the respondent landlord companyld be held number to have been served at all simply because the postman, who had made the endorsement of refusal, had number been produced.
N. Rao, for the respondent.
250/ for a period of five years for running a lodging house.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BEG J. The defendant appellant had taken a house on rent under a registered lease dated 10th February, 1958, on a monthly rent of rent Rs.
It J is admitted by both sides that in February, 1963, the lease had expired.
2190 of 1968.
