S VELU PILLAI DIED Vs. S LAKSHMI DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 42 of 1989 on the file of the Additional District Munsif-cum-Rent Controller,. Nagercoil is the revision petitioner. After filing this revision, both the landlady and tenant died and their legal representatives are impleaded as additional petitioners and additional respondent

(2.) THE landlady filed the eviction petition on the ground that the tenant had committed wilful default in paying the rent. THE material averments in the eviction petition could be summarised as thus: THE tenant took the scheduled premises on oral lease from the landlady's husband late S. Chockahngam from 17.10.1960. At that time, the monthly rent was Rs. 15/-. THE respondent paid rent upto and inclusive of 11.2.1970 to the landlady's husband and after his death, the rent was being paid to the landlady. Whenever rent is paid, the receipt was also being issued to the tenant. THE rent from 12.2.1970 was defaulted and that compelled the landlady to issue a lawyer's notice on 9.2.1972. THE tenant accepted the same and agreed that he will pay the rent arrears and also surrender schedule property shortly and requested that no eviction proceedings be initiated against him. At that time, the rent upto 12.1.1971 was also paid. Since the property tax for the building was enhanced by the local authority, the landlady wanted enhancement in the rent and the rent was enhanced to Rs. 20/- by mutual consent. From 13.1.1971, the tenant was paying Rs. 20/- per month and he paid rent up to 14.12.1973. THEreafter, he committed default in paying rent. THE landlady by herself and through her brother demanded the tenant to surrender vacant possession of the building with rent arrears. THE tenant was evading payment and also to surrender possession. A notice was issued on 15.10.1976 demanding rent arrears and also to vacate the premises. Long after receipt of the notice, a reply was sent on 28.12.1976 denying the allegations therein. In the meanwhile, the rent arrears also increased to a huge amount. In the reply notice, the tenant contended that he has paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to landlady's husband and there was an oral agreement to adjust the rent in the loan paid by him. THErefore, the landlady initiated H.R.C. No. 18 of 1977 before the Rent Controller, Nagercoil seeking eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent. In that proceedings, the tenant alleged that he paid Rs. 1,000/- to late S. Chockalingam and also contended that the landlady agreed to adjust the said amount towards the rent due from him. THE Rent Controller accepted the allegations of the tenant and dismissed the eviction petition. Though the matter was taken in appeal and revision, the same was also dismissed.

(3.) AGAINST the Judgment, the tenant preferred R.C.A. No. 23 of 1992 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority-Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil. The Appellate Authority also confirmed the decision of the Rent Control after re-appreciating the entire evidence. The explanation offered by the tenant that he used to pay the rent in advance was found to be not true and the contention that the landlord also used to accept the rent belatedly without any objection was also found to be not correct. The appeal is dismissed.