N L ADHINARAYANAN Vs. D KRISHNAMOORTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act. In this revision petition the petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord within the meaning of the Act. THE landlord sought the eviction of the tenant under Sec. 10(2)(1) of the Act on the ground that the tenant has not paid the rents at the rate of Rs.105 per month from April, 1985 till July, 1985. Thus the question arose before the Controller, who heard the petition for eviction, as to whether the tenant committed wilful default in the payment of the rents for the period from April, 1985 to July, 1985. THE tenant sent by a money order the rents for the period from April, 1985 to August, 1985, on 23.9.1985 and that was obviously after the filing of the petition and the landlord declined to receive the money order. THE tenant would contest by stating that the landlord used to receive once in three months or four months without any demur and that there was a talk of Settlement with regard to the demand for enhanced rent made by the landlord and the rate of rent was settled at Rs.175 per month and time was taken to reduce the settlement into a document and in the meanwhile the landlord has rushed to the Controller by filing the petition for eviction. THE Controller assessed the evidence placed in the case by the parties and came to the conclusion that the tenant committed wilful default in the payment of rents and as a result ordered eviction. THE tenant appealed and the Appellate Authority found no warrant to interfere with the order of the Controller and dismissed the appeal. This revision is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority.

(2.) MR.S.Subbiah, learned counsel for the tenant, would submit that both the Controller and the Appellate Authority ought to have accepted the case of the tenant and they ought to have held that it is not a case of a wilful default committed by the tenant and learned counsel for the tenant says that this is a case where this court should legitimately exercise the power of revision under Sec.25 of the Act. Here, find a case where both the Controller and the Appellate Authority rendered findings on facts against the tenant on the question of the tenant committing wilful default in the payment of the rents. The revisional powers of this Court are conferred by Sec.25 of the Act and it is sufficient if Sec. 25(1) of the Act is extracted as follows, for the purpose of finding out the scope of the revisional powers of this Court.

(3.) IN Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works v. Rangaswami, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1253, the scope of the power of this Court under Sec.25 of the Act was construed and was settled in the following terms: