12. Per contra, Sri Nazir Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner/landlord submitted that originally, the father of the respondent was running the business in the schedule premises and that he was also not regular in payment of rents and that subsequently, the respondent, during the life time of his father itself, started sending the rents in his own name and since the rents were not sent in the name of the original tenant, i.e., the father of the respondent, the petitioner rightly refused to receive the same and that the respondent continued to send the rents in his own name and subsequently, after the death of his father, the respondent committed willful default in payment of rents. It is also his submission that the learned Rent Controller, on appreciation of the evidence on record, categorically found that the respondent has committed willful default in payment of rents to the petitioner from November, 1998 to April, 1999 and that the evidence on record also proves the same and in view of the same, both the revisions are liable to be dismissed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel had relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case between M.Bhaskar Vs. J.Venkatarama Naidu[4] and the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court i n Vinukonda Venkata Ramana Vs. Mootha Venkateswara Rao and anothe r[5] .
