M M ILIYAS Vs. M R PAKKIRISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the common judgment and decree dated 28.11.1994 and made in R.C.A.Nos.7 of 1992 and 9 of 1992, confirming the order of the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.62 of 1989 and 59 of 1989, respectively, on the file of the Rent Control Court, Nagapattinam.

(2.) THE facts that are necessary for the disposal of these revision petitions are as follows:- THE petitioners before the Rent Controller, Nagapattinam, who are the appellants before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, are the revision petitioners herein. THE revision petitioners are the owners of the property described in the eviction petition. THE revision petitioners leased out a thatched shed measuring about 33-1/2 feet x 19-3/4 feet, to the respondent, on 21.7.1982. on a monthly rent of Rs.30 and advance amount of Rs.100 was paid. THE area of lease was enlarged by extending the thatched sheet by 53 feet x 19-3/4 feet, in the year 1983 and the respondent agreed to pay the rent at Rs.40 per month. THE respondent has committed wilful default in payment of rent from February, 1989 to September, 1989, totalling to Rs.320, for a period of 8 months. THE 1st revision petitioner is doing business by visiting abroad frequently and he is not maintaining good health to carry on business in abroad. THE revision petitioners have decided to start business in timber and therefore they want to demolish the thatched shed and to construct an R.C.C. building with shops to carry on the said business. THE revision petitioners will comply with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" in demolishing the thatched shed and constructing the R.C.C. building. THE revision petitioners are having sufficient funds and have also obtained approved plan and permission for such construction. THE revision petitioners undertake to commence the demolition of the thatched shed within a month from the date of taking possession and complete the construction within a period of three months therefrom. It is under the said circumstances the revision petitioners have sought for eviction of the respondent from the demised premises.

(3.) THE case of the respondent would disclose that he had visited the house of the revision petitioners several times, to pay the rent, but, he was informed by the 2nd revision petitioner to pay the rent as usual to Sheik Allaudin or to Noorul Amin. It is also the case of the respondent that he attempted to pay the rent to Sheik Allaudin, who evaded to receive the same, that he developed suspicion of foul play on the part of the revision petitioners and Sheik Allaudin and that therefore he sent the rent to Sheik Allaudin by Money Order, as seen in Ex.B-2, dated 7.8.1989, which returned as refused. THE respondent, while he was examined as a witness before the Rent Controller, has admitted that he attempted to see the 2nd revision petitioner two or three times to pay the rent. but he could not see her, even though he had stated subsequently that the 2nd revision petitioner asked him to pay the rent to her agent. THE abovesaid statements are contradictory to each other. If the respondent could not see the 2nd revision petitioner, who is a pardhanashin woman, during his attempt to see her, it is not known as to how or through whom he came to know that the 2nd revision petitioner had asked him to pay the rent to her agent. Likewise, there is also no evidence, except the interested testimony of the respondent herein, to establish that he had attempted to pay the rent from the month of February, 1989 to Sheik Allaudin. It is not even the case of the respondent that he had attempted to pay the rent at least to Noorul Amin, the son of the revision petitioners. It is for the first time that the respondent had taken effort to send the rent to Sheik Allaudin for the months of February, 1989 to July, 1989, by money order, as seen in Ex.B-2 on 7.8.1989. THE said Money Order sent was returned as refused. Of course, a perusal of Ex.B-2 would disclose that the respondent had mentioned that he had attempted to see the revision petitioners at their residence, but he could not see them and; that therefore, the arrears of rent for six months was sent to Sheik Allaudin by money order. It is a self serving statement, which was made by the respondent at the time of sending the money order after committing default in payment of rent for six months. THE respondent has sent a notice as seen in Ex.B-3, dated 19.8.1989, to the revision petitioners, and the notice sent to the 1st revision petitioner was returned as he was in abroad. A reply, as seen in Ex.B-4. was sent by the 2nd revision petitioner on 1.9.1989. denying the allegations made in the notice Ex.B-3 and explaining the reasons as to why the money order sent in Ex.B-2 was returned as refused. THE fact that rent was not paid by the respondent herein for about six months on the date of sending of the money order-as seen in Ex.B-2, has not been denied even though an attempt was made on the side of the respondent to explain as to why the rent was not paid, which is not acceptable one. THErefore, the reason given in the reply notice for not receiving the rent sent by money order, as seen in Ex.B-2, to Sheik Allaudin cannot be held as unreasonable one.