BHASKARAN Vs. NATESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVEIGHING the judgments and decrees dated 10/1/2005 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruvarur (Rent Control Appellate Authority) in R.C.A. Nos. 22 and 23 of 2003 confirming the fair and decreetal orders dated 30/9/2003 passed by the learned District Munsif, Thiruthuraipoondi (Rent Controller) in R.C.O.P. Nos. 3 and 4 of 2001, these two civil revision petitions are focussed by the tenant.

(2.) HEARD both sides.

(3.) OWNER's occupation by invoking Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(a); 10(2)(ii)(b), 10(2)(iii) and 10(3)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). b) Whereas the revision petitioner/tenant filed the R.C.O.P. No. 4 of 2001 invoking Section 8(5) of the Act for deposit of rent and both the matters were contested. c) During enquiry in R.C.O.P. No. 3 of 2001, the landlord examined himself as P.W. 1 along with P.W.2 and marked Exhibits P-1 to P-9. On the side of the tenant, the tenant examined himself as R.W.1 no document was marked. d) In R.C.O.P. No. 4 of 2001, on the side of tenant, he examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exhibits P-1 to P-5. On the side of the landlords, the landlord-Natesan examined himself as R.W.1 and no document was marked. e) Ultimately, the Rent Controller ordered eviction on all the grounds raised by the landlord in R.C.O.P. No. 3 of 2001 and dismissed the R.C.O.P. No. 4 of 2001 filed by the tenant under Section 8(5) of the Act. f) Being aggrieved by the same, the tenant preferred two R.C.A. Nos. 22 and 23 of 2003. However, the Appellate Authority partly allowed the R.C.A. concerned rejecting the grounds raised by the landlords relating to act of waste and different user and upheld the order of Rent Controller on the remaining three grounds and also dismissed the R.C.A. filed as against the dismissal of the R.C.O.P. filed by the tenant under Section 8(5) of the Act. g) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the orders of both the Courts below, these two revisions are focussed by the tenant more or less on the same grounds, 4. The learned counsel for the tenant reiterating the grounds of revision would develop his argument, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus: - Both the Courts below failed to take into account the fact that absolutely there was no sub-letting on the part of the tenant for the reasons that the demised premises comprised of only 270 sq.ft, which is a shop premises. Whereas admittedly and indisputably the so-called sub-tenant was having his bunk and selling cool drinks, somewhat near the demised premises on the pavement belonging to Panchayat. As such, both the Courts below were wrong in holding that there was sub-letting. Even though the landlord contended that his graduate unemployed son is in need of the demised premises for running general merchant shop, no evidence was produced. However, both the Courts below assumed and presumed as though the said ground relating to OWNERs occupation was established before them. - The Courts below wrongly held as though there was willful default in payment of five months rent so to say, from January to May 2001, even though clinching evidence was adduced before the Rent Controller to demonstrate and display that the tenant was not aware of the change of OWNERship relating to the demised premises and that the tenant was not put on notice about such change of OWNER ship. - The tenant in fact, made several efforts to see that the rent is received by the landlord. But owing to the cantankerous attitude of the erstwhile landlord as well as the present landlord, the rent was not received by them. - For no fault of the tenant, he cannot be mulcted with the liability as though he committed willful default in paying rent. Even though the tenant filed the R.C.O.P. No. 4 of 2001 invoking Section 8(5) of the Act and also enclosed the challan for deposit of the rent; the Rent Controller failed to pass any order thereon. - As such, the landlords cannot try to project and label the tenant as a willful defaulter. No doubt, after getting orders from the High Court totally a sum of Rs.19,250/- representing 55 months rent so to say, from January 2001 to July 2005 had been paid and it would not connote and denote as though he was a defaulter in paying rent for 55 months. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant would pray for the dismissal of the R.C.O.P. filed by the landlords and for allowing the R.C.O.P. filed by the tenant, by allowing these revisions. 5. Per contra, by way of torpedoing and pulverising the contentions/arguments as put forth on the side of the tenant the learned counsel for the landlords would develop his argument,which could tersely and briefly be set out thus: - Both the Courts below gave a concurrent finding to the effect that the tenant despite having full knowledge about the factum of the present landlord having purchased the demised premises simply committed default in paying the rent and that demonstrates and displays that deliberately the tenant did not want to pay the rent. - The scope of Section 25 of the Act is clear that the revisional Court would not interfere with the concurrent findings of both the Courts below. - There is no perversity or illegality in the orders passed by the Courts below. - The attempt on the part of the tenant in puttng the blame on the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority as though they did not pass any orders regarding deposit of rent is totally untenable and it was the duty of the counsel appearing for the tenant to see that he got appropriate orders for depositing the rent from the Court concerned. Having failed to do so and that too having deposited a total sum of Rs. 19,250/- representing 55 months in one lump sum before this Court, it would not lie in the mouth of the tenant to contend as though he was not at fault but only the Courts below were at fault. - The tenant in fact sub-let the premises and to that extent both the Courts gave their findings warranting no interference. The landlord's son has been in need of the demised premises for conducting business. Law does not envisage that he should actually be engaged in doing a business but even a mere preparation would be more than sufficient for attracting Section 10(3)(a)(iiii) of the Act. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the revision.