Madras High Court
Vijayakumar vs Ravindran S/O Ayyadurai Jesudasan And ... on 31 March, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997(3)CTC476
Author: P.D. Dinakaran
Bench: P.D. Dinakaran
ORDER P.D. Dinakaran, J.
1. The above revision petition is directed against the order and decree dated 4.11.91 made in RCA. No. 45 of 1991 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Sub-Court), Tirunelveli reversing the order and decree dated 9.7.91 made in R.C.O.P.No. 173 of 1989 on the file the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsiff Court, Tirunelveli).
2. The brief facts of the case are stated below:- The respondent in the above revision petition filed R.C.O.P.No. 173/89 under Section 10(2)(i) and Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act seeking eviction of the revision petitioner/tenant herein on the ground of wilful default in payment of the rent and the requirement of the petitioner premises for owners occupation.
3. According to the respondent/landlord herein, the petitioner premises was leased out to the revision petitioner herein for a monthly rent of Rs. 625 excluding Electricity and Water Charges. The tenancy was according to English Calendar Month. The rent is payable on or before 7th day of succeeding month. The revision petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 3,125 being 5 months rent as advance at the inception of the tenancy.
4. The respondent/landlord complaints that the revision petitioner tenant herein did not pay the rent from June 1989 onwards. The respondent/landlord further complaints that in spite of refusal of the demand draft of Rs. 625 sent by the revision petitioner/tenant on 13.9.89, with a note that he could not accept the payment without settlement of the entire arrears, since the revision petitioner/tenant had not chosen to settle the arrears and therefore the respondent/landlord sent a notice on 19.10.89 demanding arrears of rent with a request to vacate by the building as the same was required for owner occupation of the respondent/landlord herein. For the said notice, the revision petitioner tenant sent a reply on 4.11.89; the contents of which was denied by the respondent/landlord herein in his rejoinder dated 25.11.89.
5. The revision petitioner/tenant filed a detailed counter in the R.C.O.P.No. 173 of 1989 denying wilful default in payment of rent and further claims that the monthly rent was only Rs. 400 and not Rs. 625. The revision petitioner/tenant also disputed the arrears and the wilful default in payment of rent thereof and also denied the bona fide of the requirements of the petition premises for owners occupation by the respondent/landlord herein.
6. The learned Rent Controller Authority in his order dated 9.7.91 found that the revision petitioner/tenant had committed wilful default in payment or rent and therefore ordered the eviction, by his order and decree dated 9.7.91. In view of the above finding there was no discussion as to the bona fide requirements of the petitioner premises by the respondent/landlord for owner occupation,
7. Aggrieved by the said order dated 9.7.91 the revision petitioner/tenant preferred an appeal R.C.A.No. 45 of 1991 before the Rent Controller Authority who by his order dated 04.11.91 dismissed the appeal R.C.A.No. 45 of 1991.
8. Against the said order dated, 4.11.91 in R.C.A.No. 45 of 1991 the revision petitioner/tenant has preferred the above revision/petition No. 3169 of 1991.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/tenant contends that in view of the deposit of advance available with the respondent/landlord, the revision petitioner/tenant has an option to adjust the excess advance amount towards the rent due and therefore, in view of the decision of the Apex Court reported in S. Sundaram v. V.R. Pattabiraman, A.I.R. 1985 SC 596 para 67 and in K. Narasimhrao v. TM. Nasimuddin Ahmed, the revision petitioner/tenant has not committed any wilful default.
10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/landlord invited my attention to the finding of the Appellate Court in para 10 of the order. Even assuming that the revision/petitioner/tenant is entitled to adjust the excess of deposit amount towards the arrears of rent, still the revision petitioner tenant had committed wilful default.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent referred the finding of the Appellate Authority in para 10 of the order dated 4.11.91 that the revision petitioner/tenant had committed wilful default not only prior to the filing of the eviction petition, but also during the tenancy of the eviction petition till the revision petitioner/tenant sought to prefer the above appeal R.C.A.No. 45 of 1991 before the Appellate Authority and made the payment of arrears only on 8.1.91 and therefore held that the revision petitioner tenant committed wilful default.
12. After careful consideration of submissions of both sides, I am of the view that even assuming that the revision petitioner is entitled to rely upon the decision reported in S. Sundaram v. V.R. Pattabiraman, A.I.R 1985 SC 596 para 67) and in K. Narasimharao v. T.M. Nasimuddin Ahmed, as rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the respondent, that the revision petitioner/tenant as found in para 10 of the order dated 4.11.1991 have committed wilful default in payment of the rent even after adjusting the alleged deposit amount,
13. The revision/petition is therefore dismissed. However, there will be no orders as to cost.