K N RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. THAMMARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second respondent and the legal representatives of the first respondent in R.C.O.P.No.204 of 1977 on the file of the Rent Controller, Nilgiris, are the petitioners in the Civil Revision Petition. THE petitioner in the said R.C.O.P. is the respondent in this civil revision petition. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in this revision by the nomenclature given to them in the Rent Control Original Petition.

(2.) THE petitioner filed R.C.O.P.No.204 of 1977 against the petitioner for eviction under Secs.10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings ("Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for evicting the respondents from the petition mentioned premises on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent and for own use and occupation, THE case of the petitioner is as follows: THE petitioner became the owner of the petition mentioned premises by virtue of the sale deed dated 30.5.1977 executed by one Vedavalli Ammal, When the respondents were tenants of the residential portion except one room, the respondents were paying rent of Rs.75 per month, to the original landlady, Vedavalli Ammal, THE original rent fixed was Rs.55 per month and it was subsequently increased to Rs.75 per month from 1.6.1973. THE respondents were in wilful arrears of rent of Rs.1,720 upto 30.4.1977. THEreafter, from 1.6.1977 to 30.9.1977 for four months the respondents did not pay Rs.300 to the petitioner. THE petitioner's vendor had collected the arrears due upto 30.4.1977 viz., a sum of Rs.1,720 from the petitioner. THE respondents are liable to pay Rs.2,020 to the petitioner as arrears of rent upto 30.9.1977 which the respondents have failed and neglected to pay the petitioner inspite of demands. THE default in the payment of rent is deliberate and wilful. THE respondents resisted the application for eviction contending as follows: THE house in question was only a farm house with door numbers 260-A and 260-B. THE rent payable was only Rs.55 per month and not Rs.75 as claimed by the petitioner. THE respondents were cultivating the land and they are entitled to the protection of the Cultivating Tenants" Protection Act. THE respondents were paying municipal tax upto 1.8.1979. Only a sum of Rs.210 was due to the previous landlady, Vedavalli Ammal. THE respondents paid Rs.1,635 as property-tax and, therefore, there is no arrears and, as a matter of fact, the respondents have made an excess payment of Rs.1,150,33. THE petitioner would be entitled to get possession of the petition mentioned premises only on payment of Rs.33,000 spent by the respondents for improvement of the petition mentioned building.

(3.) THE question that arises, for consideration in this civil revision petition is whether the respondents committed wilful default in the payment of rent for the period from 19.8.1976 to 30.5.1977.