GOVINDARAJALU NAIDU Vs. VADUGANATHAN (DECEASED) RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Revisions have been filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). As these revisions relate to the same property and between the same parties, they were heard together and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The Petitioner in both the revisions is the tenant and the Respondents are the landlord. The facts of the case lies in a narrow campus. One Mr. Vaduganathan Chettiar was the owner of the petition premises under whom the Petitioner was inducted as the tenant during September 1987, in respect of a non-residential premises, the tenancy was a oral tenancy, according to English calendar month. The rent payable was Rs. 750/-and the Petitioner had paid an advance of Rs. 8,000/-. The said Mr. Vaduganathan Chettiyar filed RCOP. No. 37 of 1999, against the Petitioner herein stating that after October 1998, the Petitioner defaulted in payment of rent and such default was willful. As the said Mr. Vaduganathan Chettiyar died, his son Mr. Ramesh was brought on record. It was stated that the said Ramesh was unemployed and he desires to start a business in the petition premises and therefore, the petition premises is 3 required for the said purpose. Thus, as legal notice was sent on 31.08.1999, stating that the tenant has committed willful default in payment of rent and the landlord requires the premises for the purpose of running a business by the said Ramesh. On the above grounds, the landlord sought for eviction under Section 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.

(3.) The Petitioner/tenant resisted the eviction petition by contenting that the tenancy commenced during September 1987 and the monthly rent of Rs. 250/-and a sum of Rs. 8,000/-was paid as advance and that the monthly rent was paid regularly and the rent was periodically increased upto Rs. 750/-per month and that whenever the landlord increased the rent, he also demanded additional advance and the Petitioner paid further sum of Rs. 27,000/-as additional advance and the landlord retained a sum of Rs. 35,000/-as advance. It was further stated that the landlord has suppressed the said fact in the eviction petition. Since, the landlord attempted to evict the tenant by force, the tenant filed a Civil Suit on 19.07.1999 and it is only thereafter, the landlord sent a eviction notice dated 31.08.1999, which was suitably replied by the tenant, by reply notice dated 10.09.1999. It is further contended that from July 1999, the landlord refused to receive rent and therefore, on 06.08.1999, the tenant sent the same by money order, which was refused to be received by the landlord. The tenant denied the allegation that after October 1998, no rent was paid and that upto June 1998, the rent was paid and thereafter, the landlord refused to receive rent. The rent was sent by money order, which was refused to be received, notice was sent, directing the landlord to furnish the bank account number to deposit the rent and this notice returned 'unserved'. Thereupon, the tenant filed RCOP. No. 38 of 1999, for deposit of the rent. The tenant further denied the contention raised by the landlord that the premises is required for his son's business. It was further stated that the landlord owns several properties in Thiruthuraipoondi town and the plea raised by the landlord that he requires the premises for his son's business is false. Therefore, it was contended that the eviction petition was filed only to some how evict the Petitioner from the premises. That the landlord retaining a sum of Rs. 35,000/-as advance, which is far in excess of the permissible amount that can be retained and landlord is not justified in alleging willful default in payment of rent.