N JANAKIRAMAN Vs. C B RADHAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant/respondent in R.C.O.P.No.42 of 99 is the revision petitioner herein. THE respondent herein, the landlord, filed R.C.O.P. for eviction under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is as follow. THE petitioner is the owner of the petition mentioned property. THE respondent took the property on lease on 6.2.93 to run Rubber Stamp and Block making business under the name and style of "Asha Process and Printers". THE respondent paid a sum of Rs.5000 towards advance to the petitioner. THE present monthly rent for the premises is Rs.450. THE petitioner also received a sum of Rs.150 from the respondent every month as amenities charges, which is included in the aforesaid amount. THE petitioner is in the habit of issuing receipts which include the amenities charges. THE respondent agreed to pay rent on the 6th of every English Calendar month. THE respondent failed to pay monthly rent from March 1999 onwards. THE respondent has no manner of right to withhold the rent. Repeated demands of the petitioner to pay the rent fell on the deaf ears of the respondent. THE respondent has shown supine indifference in paying the monthly rent to the petitioner. THE default in payment of rent is highly wilful. Further, a case has been registered by the Town Police against the respondent in Crime No.483/99 under Sections 473 and 420 r/w 511, 1PC for counterfeiting the paid seal of "Kannan Departmental Stores". THE above act of the respondent would show that the petition mentioned property was misused by the respondent for illegal purposes. THE respondent filed suit for permanent injunction not to vacate him by force against the petitioner in O.S.No.412 of 1999. THE respondent has falsely stated in the above suit that the monthly rent is Rs.300. This itself would show that the respondent has not tendered the correct rent and therefore, the default is nothing but wilful. THE allegation in the said suit that the petitioner refused to receive the rent is false. THE respondent did not tender the rent at all. THErefore, the respondent is liable to vacate the petition mentioned property and deliver possession to the petitioner.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that the petition mentioned property was leased out to the revision petitioner/tenant on 6.2.93 for non-residential purposes and that the tenant has also paid Rs.5000 as advance. It is also seen from the records that the present R.C.O.P. was presented on 30.9.1999. Before that the revision petitioner/tenant filed O.S.No.412 of 1999 on 3.9.99 for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession until evicted under due process of law.