S VELAYUTHAM Vs. G VENKATESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 9.10.2009, made in R.C.A.No.192 of 2008, on the file of the VII Small Causes Court, Chennai, confirming the order passed in M.P.No.400 of 2007, in R.C.O.P.No.939 of 2007, on the file of the XVI Small Causes Court, Chennai.

(2.) The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the decision of the Court below, in dismissing R.C.A.No.192 of 2008, confirming the order made in M.P.No.400 of 2007, in R.C.O.P.No.939 of 2007, is untenable both in law and on facts. The Court below had erred in asking the petitioner to deposit the rents at the rate of Rs.2,500/-, from the month of August, 2004, without appreciating the defence taken in the application, under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Act, 18 of 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973. The appellate Court had failed to exercise its discretion, to reject the claim of the landlord, which was belated in nature. The court below had also failed to note that the claim of the landlord was not bona fide in nature and therefore, the petitioner ought not to have been compelled to deposit the enhanced rental amount of Rs.2,500/- per month, especially, when the petitioner was denying the claim of the respondents stating that there was no willful default.

(3.) The learned counsel had also stated that the rent control appellate authority had not considered the fact that the rent controller, while passing the order, dated 25.2.2008, in M.P.No.400 of 2007, in R.C.O.P.No.939 of 2007, had given a finding that the petitioner had committed willful default in payment of the rental amounts to the respondent. The finding of the rent controller is premature in nature and it would adversely affect the defence, that would be taken by the petitioner in the rent control proceedings, in R.C.O.P.No.939 of 2007.