P S VENKATARAJAN Vs. T A GOVINDARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition, at the instance of the tenant, is directed against the order of eviction passed by the authorities below on an application filed by the respondent-landlord under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(2) (ii) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ?the Act?). The premises bearing door No. 136, Cutchery Street, Tirupattur Town, belonging to the respondent herein was let out to the petitioner under a registered tenancy agreement dated 25.7.1978 for a period of five years from 1.8.1978 to 31.7.1983 on a monthly rental of Rs. 100/-, payable on the 5th of every month. There was also a provision in the rental agreement that major repairs in respect of the premises have to be carried out by the landlord, while minor repairs have to be attended to by the tenant. A sum of Rs. 7,000/- was also paid by the petitioner to the respondent as refundable advance without interest on the expiry of the period of tenancy. According to the case of the respondent, the premises in question was let out to the petitioner for the purpose of running a textile shop and that after carrying on business in textiles for some time, the tenant commenced to business in cement and that would constitute a different user of the premises by the petitioner. Besides, the respondent claimed that owing to the carrying on of the business in cement by the petitioner, substantial damage was caused to the building and the petitioner purported to carry out repairs without the permission of the respondent and sought to adjust the rents payable by the petitioner for the period from May, 1984 to March, 1985 and such an adjustment of rents by the petitioner towards the expenses incurred by him for repair, was not valid and binding on the respondent and the petitioner had thus committed wilful default in the payment of rents for the aforesaid period. On the aforesaid grounds, the respondent prayed for an order of eviction against the petitioner.

(2.) IN the counter filed by the petitioner, it was contended that owing to the neglect of the respondent in not carrying out the repairs to the premises, despite the issue of a notice by the petitioner, he was obliged to carry out the repairs and towards that an expenditure of Rs. 1,061-70 had been incurred and deducting that amount from the rents payable for the period from May, 1984 to March, 1985, there was no arrears of rent. The petitioner also disputed that the premises had been used for a purpose other than that for which it was let out

(3.) THOUGH learned counsel for the respondent is right in his submission that this point was not raised by the petitioner before the authorities below, in as much as the point now raised does not involve a fresh or further investigation of facts and could be dealt with and disposed of on the terms of the rental agreement under Exhibit P-1, there is no substance in the objection of learned counsel for the respondent that this point had not been raised earlier and, therefore, ought not to be permitted to be raised at this stage.