M RAMAN Vs. G KRISHNA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANIMADVERTING upon the order dated 18.09.2009 passed in RCA No.11 of 2008 by the learned Sub Judge, Udhagamandalam, Rent Control Appellate Authority, confirming the order dated 18.08.2008 passed in RCOP No.50 of 2005 by the learned District Munsif and Rent Controller, Udhagamandalam, this civil revision petition is focussed.

(2.) HEARD both sides.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds of revision would develop his argument, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus: (1) Even though the definition 'Rent' as contained in the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act would include the amounts payable towards amenities including furniture, in this case, the landlord and the tenant specifically agreed under Ex.A5 to quantify the rent for the furniture in a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month apart from quantifying a sum of Rs.3,000/- for the demised building per month. In such a case, the tenant was justified in his claim that he was liable to pay Rs.3,000/- towards demised building and over and above that Rs.3,000/- should have been adjusted towards future rent. (2) Ex.B8, the notice would exemplify and convey clearly that the tenant exercised his right to get adjusted the excess rent towards the future rents, but both the Courts below failed to analyse the facts in proper perspective and arrive at a proper conclusion.