HATIM AND CO Vs. RADHAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE civil revision petitions have been filed by the tenants, as revision petitioners, against the common judgment and decrees dated 17.4.2000 and made in R.C.A.Nos.1005 of 1993 and 1006 of 1993 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, confirming the common order and decretal order, dated 22.3.1993 and made in R.C.O.P.Nos.1472 of 1989 and 1473 of 1989 on the file of the XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras.

(2.) THE brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of these civil revision petitions are as follows: Smt.Lajja Bai is the owner of the shops bearing Nos.3 and 5 described in the petitions in R.C.O.P.Nos.1472 and 1473 of 1989, on the file of the Rent Control Court and the said ships were let out to H.Hatim and Co., and A.K.Hussain & Co., on a monthly rent of Rs.200 each. THE tenants, who are the revision petitioners herein, had failed to pay rent to the landlady, who is represented by the respondents herein, as legal representatives, on her death and, therefore, the landlady filed petitions for eviction, in R.C.O.P.Nos.1562 and 1732 of 1985, against the tenants, who are the respondents in R.C.O.P.Nos.1472 and 1473 of 1989 on the file of the Rent Controller, Madras, for the default committed by them in the payment of rent from 16.1.1984 to 31.3.1985 and 1.4.1983 to 31.3.1985, respectively. During the pendency of the abovesaid earlier rent control proceedings, the landlady filed petitions in M.P.Nos.744 and 745 of 1986 in the respective rent control petitions, under Sec.11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for stopping the further proceedings unless the arrears of rent are either deposited or paid to the landlady. As per the direction of the court in the earlier proceedings, the revision petitioners herein, as respondents in the earlier proceedings, paid Rs.3,200 and Rs.2,400, at the rate of Rs.200 and Rs.150 per month, for the period from June, 1985 to September, 1986. Though rent was not paid by the revision petitioners for the period from April, 1985 to February, 1989 before filing of the petitions for eviction on the ground of wilful default, in view of the payment made in the earlier proceedings for the period from June, 1985 to September, 1986, the revision petitioners, as respondents, have committed wilful default in payment of rent for the period from October, 1986 upto the date of filing of these petitions. It is on this ground that the land lady Smt.Lajja Bai, sought for eviction of the tenants, who are the revision petitioners herein, from the shops under their occupation, as described in the respective petitions.

(3.) THE question that arises now for consideration before this Court, is whether the non-payment of the rent by the revision petitioners for the period from October, 1986 to June, 1989 and sending the same only on 18.7.1989 will not amount to wilful default in payment of rent by them.