SYEDA SYEDUNISSA Vs. S.UMAPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 23.11.2010 passed in R.C.A.No.121 of 2009 on the file of the VIII Small Causes Court, Chennai, confirming the order dated 02.02.2009 passed in R.C.O.P.No.991 of 2008 on the file of the XIV Small Causes Court, Chennai.

(2.) The deceased first petitioner herein is the landlady and the respondent is the tenant. The deceased first petitioner filed the petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default before the learned Rent controller (XIV Small Causes Court, Chennai) in R.C.O.P.No.991 of 2008. The learned Rent Controller, after enquiry dismissed the petition by order dated 02.02.2009, on the ground that there was no wilful default as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. Challenging the said order passed by the learned Rent Controller, the landlady filed an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (VIII Small Causes Court, Chennai) in R.C.A.No.120 of 2009. The learned Rent Control Appellate authority after hearing the arguments on either side dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the learned Rent Controller by order dated 23.11.2010. Challenging the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the landlady is before this Court by way of revision.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that even after filing of the R.C.O.P. and the R.C.A., the respondent/tenant was not regular in paying rent. He would further submit that the Appellate Court was erred in holding that the notice sent under Ex.P4 dated 12.04.2008, calling upon the respondent/tenant to pay the rental arrears within three days and filing the eviction petition on 28.04.2008, within 15 days was prematured one as RCOP was filed before expiry of two months. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the following decisions: