K M MUNEERUDDIN Vs. P M PUNNOOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter arises under The Rent Control Act. The owners are The revision petitioners. The eviction of The respondent/tenant was sought on The ground of wilful default in The payment of rent from 1.11.1988 to 31.3.1989. The allegations in The petition are to The effect that The respondent had not been regular in The payment of monthly rents, that he used to send rent by money order without mentioning The month for which The rent was sent and that this he did inspite of protest and The lawyer notice dated 1.2.1989 and therefore he has liable to be evicted. The petition was filed on 17.4.1989.

(2.) The counter of The respondent among other things stated that he had been regularly sending The rents by money order to The first petitioner by specifying The months, that he sent The money order till The end of 31.8.1988, that even though The rent in respect of The property payable only in The subsequent months, he used to sometimes send The rent for one particular month in that month itself due to preoccupation in his business and frequent trips to Kerala because of The health of his wife who was taking treatment in Kottayam and Vellore where The respondent's brothers and other close relatives were residing, that sometimes he was forced to go to Kottayam and Vellore for more than a month for The purpose of taking treatment for his wife who is suffering from kidney problem, that for November and December, 1988 he sent The rent by money order to The first petitioner and The same was received duly, that The acknowledgment of The money order received by The first petitioner on 31.12.1988 for Rs.400 was available with him while The money order acknowledgment received by him for The other month was missing and he had not been able to trace it and therefore on The date he filed The counter he was paying Rs.400 once again for The dispute month solely with a view of safeguard his tenancy, that he was obliged to be out of Madras in January and February, 1989 due to his wife's illness and therefore he sent The rents for January, 1989 by money order on 1.3.1989, but The same was refused to be received by The first petitioner, that again he sent two money orders on 31.3.1989, one for The month of February, 1989 and The other for The month of March, 1989, but The said money orders were refused to be received by The first petitioner. THErefore, he sent a D.D. dated 12.4.1989 together with a letter dated 12.4.1989 for Rs.1,200 being The rents for January, February and March, 1989, but The registered cover of The said notice was deliberated evaded to be received and The same was returned, that The respondent caused to send another notice dated 12.6.1989 to The first petitioner together with a cheque for Rs.2,000 dated 14.6.1989 being The rents for five months from January, 1989 to May, 1989, that The first petitioner had received The same and encashed The cheque and that he had not committed any default, much less wilful default in The payment of rents.

(3.) There is no dispute with regard to The rent which is Rs.400 per month. Let us try to analyse The whole thing by reference to The various exhibits. Ex.R.2 is a money order coupon bearing dated 2.8.1988, under which a sum of Rs.400 had been sent to The landlord by The tenant. However, it does not specify The month for which it was sent. Exs.R.3, R.4, R.6 an R.1 are respectively dated 20,8,1988, 20.9.1988, 25.10.1988 and 13.12.1988. Under these coupons rents had been sent on The various dates, but without specifying The months for which they were sent. However, The contention of The landlord is that rent for November, 1988 had not been paid. As regards Ex.R.5 dated 31.12.1988, it is a money order coupon of Rs.400 and according to The learned counsel for The tenant, it represented rent for December, 1988. However, Ex.P.3 letter dated 1.2.1989 from The landlord's counsel it is seen that it was appropriated for October, 1988. Thereafter, for more than two months there is no money order produced to show payment of rent. On 1.3.1989 under Ex.R.7 The money order sent for Rs.400 had been returned. So also Exs.R.8 and R.9 each for Rs.400 and sent on 31.3.1989 had been returned by The landlord. At The risk of repetition it has to be mentioned that none of The money order coupons mention The months for which each money order was being sent. receipt of Ex.P.3 letter is denied by The tenant and it is also complained that proof of service was not produced by The landlord inspite of specific question put during cross- examination. Ex.P.3 further states that The landlord is not liable to pay Rs.3468.50 towards taxes and that money orders sent do not refer to The months to enable The petitioner to keep correct account. As already noticed, Ex.P.3 further states that The rent sent in December, 1988 related to October, 1988 and it had been appropriated for October, 1988. Thereafter, on 12.4.1989 under cover of Ex.R.10 The respondent/tenant sent a D.D. for Rs.1200 purporting to represent The rents for January to March, 1989. Under Ex.R.1 1 The letter and The D.D. were returned and on 17.4.1989 The landlord filed The eviction petition alleging wilful default in The payment of rent for November and December, 1988. On 12.6.1989 a cheque for Rs.2,000 was sent as an enclosure to Ex.P.4 = Ex.R.12 and this cheque was accepted by The landlord. The first hearing of The R.C.O.P. was on 23.6.1989. No doubt, The tenant had not been served with The summons in The proceedings and The Court was ordering fresh summons to The respondent/tenant.