Madras High Court
R. Govindhammal, R. Hariharanathan, R. ... vs A. Nirmala on 31 July, 2002
Equivalent citations: (2002)3MLJ412
ORDER K. Govindarajan, J.
1. The tenants having suffered an order of eviction before the Authorities below have filed the above Civil Revision Petition.
2. The respondent/landlady filed a petition in R.C.O.P. No.60 of 2000 on the file of the Rent Controller (II Additional District Munsif), Trichy under Section 10(2)(i) of Tamilnadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act on the ground that the petitioners/tenants have not paid the rent from the month of December, 1996 onwards. Though the tenants have come forward with the plea in the counter that they paid the rent till August, 1999 and thereafter, the Rent Controller, on the basis of evidence found that the tenants paid rent only till August, 1999 and thereafter, the rent was not paid. On appeal by the tenants, the learned the Appellate authority confirmed the same. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition.
3. The above facts are not in dispute. The only reason stated by the tenants is that though the said amount was sent, it was not received. But, admittedly, the tenants have not filed any petition under Section 8 to deposit the said amount. The fact remains that the tenants have not paid rent for 7 months from September, 1999 to March, 2000. As stated already, the only reason stated is that after the filing of the suit by the tenants, the landlady refused to receive the rent. The Authorities below found that the tenants have not taken any step to deposit the same in the Court to show their bona fide intention to pay the rent and so, there is wilful default.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/tenants has submitted that the amount was already deposited on the first hearing itself. This Court in number of decisions has held that mere deposit of arrears of rent on receipt of summons or on the date fixed in the summons for appearance of the tenant would not rectify the disqualification suffered by the tenant already. Both the Authorities below concurrently found that the tenants committed wilful default in payment of rent. In view of the said finding of facts by the Authorities below, I do not incline to interfere with the same. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P.No.10889 of 2002 is also dismissed.