P M PUNNOOSE Vs. K M MUNNERUDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord-respondents filed an application seeking eviction of the appellant-tenant from the suit premisses on the ground alleged to be available under clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Act No. 18 of 1960) (hereinafter referred as 'the Act' for short). The relevant provisions read as under :

(2.) The Controller allowed the application and directed the appellant-tenant to be evicted recording a finding that the tenant had committed a wilful default in the payment of rent. The tenant preferred an appeal which was allowed by the Court of Small Causes, being the appellate authority. The landlord preferred a revision under Section 25 of the Act which has been allowed. The High Court has set aside the judgment of the appellate authority and restored that of the Controller. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant has filed this appeal by special leave.

(3.) The facts in brief, so far as relevant for the purpose of this appeal, are briefly stated hereinafter. The landlord-respondents, five in number, purchased the suit property from the predecessor in title under the sale deed dated 9-1-1987. On the date of purchase, the appellant was the tenant in the suit premises holding the same on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- from the predecessor in title of the respondents. On purchase of the property by the respondents the appellant commenced paying rent to the respondents. The rent for the month of January, 1987 was remitted by the appellant to the five respondents by way of five money orders for Rs. 80/- each. Thereafter, the appellant started remitting the rent to the respondents by money orders of Rs. 400/-, each payable to the first respondent. There is some controversy as to the exact amount of the rent paid or tendered but to clearing of such controversy, we will proceed to notice only such facts as have been found proved. After remitting the rent for the month of January, 1987, as stated hereinabove, the appellant-tenant sent seventeen money orders through which rent up to the month of September, 1988 was paid by the appellant and received by the respondents. Thereafter, the dispute erupted.