K S PANDIAN Vs. G RUKMANI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of eviction passed as against the revision petitioner/tenant in R.C.A.No.89 of 1991, Sub Court, Madurai, reversing the order of the Rent Controller, Madurai, in R.C.O.P.No.128 of 1984.

(2.) THE respondents have prayed for eviction of the tenant, contending that the premises was taken on lease by the revision petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.35. The petitioner was always irregular in payment of rent and a notice was sent on 9.12.1997 pointing out the wilful nature of the default in payment of rent. Rents were being sent by money orders. He was unable to take proceedings as he was employed out of Madurai town. Earlier, a sum of Rs.210 was sent claiming to be the rent due for the period March, 1981 to April, 1982. After the said payment, he did not pay any amount. Therefore, rents were due from April, 1982 to the end of January, 1984 namely, for a period of 22 months. A notice dated 9.1.1984 was sent terminating the tenancy which was received by the tenant on 11.1.1984. A reply dated 1.2.1984 was sent with a cheque for Rs.735 which also did not represent the correct amount due as on that date since as on that date, a sum of Rs.820 was due. A rejoinder was sent accepting the cheque under protest and also stating that balance amounts were due. The rejoinder was received by the tenant on 11.2.1984. A false reply was sent stating that the tenant had been asked to retain the rents as savings. Hence, petition for eviction.

(3.) IT is therefore, necessary to consider the correctness or otherwise of the contention that. (a) if the entire arrears have been paid before filing the petition, or, (b) if the arrears are paid at the first hearing of the petition then it should be held that there was no default. The contention thus raised is very startling in my opinion and is likely to have considerable impact on all the Rent Control proceedings at all levels and therefore, requires detailed analysis.