S. PERIYALAKSHMI Vs. K. HARI BHASKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is a Revision Petitioner.

(2.) The respondent/landlord filed R.C.O.P. 846 of 2013, for eviction of the tenant under Section 10(2) (1) of the Tamil nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, on the ground of wilful default. After contest, revision was ordered in favour of the landlord and the same was confirmed in an appeal filed by the tenant in R.C.A.No.157 of 2017 and hence, the Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant would contend that none of the ingredients as found in Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1960 has been made out. The Revision Petitioner has sent a legal notice along with the copy of the demand draft, Ex.R2 on 06.08.2012 and the same was not appreciated by the Courts below in proper prospective. On the very first hearing, the revision Petitioner had rendered the outstanding amount payable to the landlord and has filed a Memo to the said effect on 05.07.2013 in Ex.R3 and the said documents have also not been examined in proper perspective.