MANICKKAMPILLAI Vs. A SAKUNTALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tiruchy, b R.CA. No. 26 of 1993 confirming the order of the Rent Controller, Tiruchy, in R.CO.P. No. 156 of 1987. The tenant is the revision petitioner.

(2.) EVICTION was sought for on the grounds of wilful default and for demolition and reconstruction.

(3.) MR. Raja Kalifullah appearing for the respondents/landlord contends that the conduct of the tenant clearly discloses the wilful nature of the default. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that the monthly rent was Rs. 175/- and not Rs. 100/-. Though the notice was sent on 173.1986, petition for eviction was filed only on 23.04.1987. There was no attempt on the part of the tenant either to pay the rent or to take steps under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, for fixation of fair rent. The landlord had refused to receive the money order since the amount sent by the tenant did not represent the correct amount and the tenant ought to have taken steps to deposit the amount at least into Court. As regards the requirement for demolition and reconstruction of the petition building, the landlord positively pleaded that he wants to augment his income. The condition of the building was also very heavily damaged and even otherwise, the condition of the building was only one of the relevant circumstances and it has been repeatedly held that it was not necessary that a building should be in a dilapidated condition. If the landlord had adequate source, he is entitled to take steps as may be necessary to augment better income and the landlord cannot be deprived of his rights to do so. The decisions by the Courts below are concurrent findings and therefore, no interference was called for at the revisional stage.