D SINGARAJ Vs. MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant herein is the tenant of the premises No. 20, Puliyani Salai Road (Thiruvaluvar Road) Ayyanar Nagar, Pondicherry. Initially the said premises was owned by Selvi Arokiya Mary. Subsequently by a sale deed dated 20th March, 1986 the erstwhile owner transferred the said premises in favour of the respondent. On 29th May, 1987 the respondent served, notice on the tenant intimating him that he has purchased the said premises and has become the owner thereof and the tenant is required to pay rent to him. Before the notice could be served the appellant filed RCOP No. 4/1987 under Section 9 of (Pondicherry Buildings Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969. On 22nd March, 1988 the Authorised Officer passed an order to deposit rent from January, 1987 to November, 1987 and subsequently on 29th March, 1988 the officer further passed an order to deposit rent for the period beginning from December, 1987 up to March, 1988 and also for subsequent months. The tenant in compliance of the aforesaid order deposited a sum of Rs. 1,615. 00, Rs. 600 and Rs. 150 respectively and thereafter, he continued to deposit the rent before the authorised officer. Subsequently the said application was withdrawn by the tenant.

(2.) The landlord filed RCOP No. 159/ 1987, RCOP No. 220/1989 claiming arrears of rent but those petitions were dismissed in default. Thereafter, the respondent-landlord filed RCOP No. 94/91 seeking eviction of the appellant-tenant on the grounds of bona fide need as well as for default in payment of arrears of rent. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition on the ground that the landlord has failed to substantiate that he is in bona fide need of the premises inasmuch as tenant has committed any default in payment of arrears of rent. The landlord thereafter, filed an appeal before the learned District Judge. The District Judge was of the view that the tenant has committed default in payment of rent for the period beginning from January 1987 to November, 1987 and from December, 1987 to March, 1988 under Ext. B6 and further the tenant has also committed default for the period beginning from March 1993 to May, 1993 under Ext. B10. The appellate court further found that the need of the landlord is bonafide. Consequently, the appeal was allowed. The appellant preferred a revision before the High Court. The High Court agreed with the view taken by the appellate court that the tenant has committed willful default in payment of arrears of rent for the period under Ext. B6. Consequently the revision was dismissed. However, the findings of the appellate court that the landlord bona fide requires the premises was set aside. It is against the said judgment the tenant is in appeal before us.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the landlord's RCOP No. 159/ 1987 and RCOP No. 20/1989 having been dismissed in default it was not open to the landlord to bring the present petition seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground for default in payment of arrears of rent. In other words his argument is that the dismissal in default of these RCOPs would constitute res judicata in the subsequent petition viz. , RCOP No. 94/91 out of which the present appeal arises.