P.ARUMUGAM Vs. T.N.PARANDAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the tenant and the respondent herein is the landlord.

(2.) The respondent/landlord filed a petition in R.C.O.P.No.5 of 2009, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Ponneri / Rent Controller, for eviction, on the ground of willful default. After hearing, the learned Rent Controller, by an order dated 02.09.2010, dismissed the said petition filed by the respondent/landlord for eviction holding that no willful default has been committed by the petitioner/tenant. Aggrieved over the same, the respondent/landlord filed an appeal in R.C.A.No.16 of 2011, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ponneri / Rent Control Appellate Authority. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, after hearing the arguments, by judgement dated 27.01.2016, allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the leaned Rent Controller. Challenging the said judgement passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, the petitioner/tenant filed the present revision before this Court.

(3.) The case of the respondent/landlord is that the property belongs to the respondent and he let out the scheduled premises to the revision petitioner/tenant herein. The tenancy was reduced into writing on 09.04.2008 and the monthly rent was fixed as Rs.750/-. The petitioner/tenant paid only two months rent and thereafter from June, 2008 onwards, he has not paid the rent, thereby he committed willful default. The respondent/landlord issued a legal notice to the petitioner on 03.11.2008 and terminated the tenancy on expiry of 30.11.2008 and called upon the petitioner/tenant to vacate and surrender vacant possession of the rented premises. Though the petitioner/tenant has acknowledged the receipt of notice, he neither sent a reply nor complied with the same but on the other hand, filed a suit in O.S.No.445 of 2008, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Ponneri for permanent injunction restraining the respondent/landlord from taking forcible possession until evicting the petitioner/tenant by due process of law. As there was no such incident took place as alleged by the petitioner in the suit in O.S.No.445 of 2008 and the petitioner has willfully defaulted in paying the rent, the respondent has filed a petition for eviction.