J. AMRIT Vs. T. N. PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Civil Revision Petition arises under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of convenience). The landlord who failed in his attempt to get the tenant evicted on the ground that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent and on the ground that the tenant had ceased to occupy the demised premises for a period of more than four months under sections 10 (2) (i) and 10 (2) (vi) of the Act is on Revision. According to the landlord the tenant had committed default on payment of the monthly rent at Rs. 650 per month from November 2000 to December 2001 that is for a period of 14 months. It was also claimed that the tenant has not opened the business premises for more than eight months and has thus rendered himself liable for eviction on the ground that he ceased to occupy the building.

(2.) The said petition was resisted by the tenant contending that the default is not wilful. The tenant would further claim that he has paid an advance of Rs. 10,000 to the predecessor in interest of the landlord and therefore there is no question of his having committed any default in payment of the rent. It was further claimed that since the landlord and one Uthamkumar attempted to forcibly evict the tenant, he was forced to file a civil suit in O.S.No: 865 of 1997 on the file of the principal District Munsif, Madurai seeking a permanent injunction restraining the landlord from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the premises. It is claimed that the landlord remind ex parte in the said suit and eventually the suit came to be decreed on 1-11-2000. The tenant would further claim that a legal tender of rent made by him was refused and the demand draft was returned by the landowner. A notice was issued on 7-2-1998 calling upon the landlord to specify the bank account in order to enable the tenant to deposit the rent. Though the notice was received by the landlord, he did not choose to send any reply. It is claimed that the tenant had been sending the rent regularly by way of demand drafts. It was therefore claimed that there was no default in payment of rent much less wilful default. The tenant would further add that till October 2000 rent was sent by bank drafts and thereafter the petitioner/landlord agreed to receive the rent in person. The tenant was informed by Mr Uthamkumar, that the petitioner had gone to his native place and he would receive the rent upon his return. Upon receipt of the notice in the Rent Control Original Petition the tenant had sent the rent by way of demand draft even before the first hearing of the rent control original petition. The absence of demand on the part of the landlord, for the arrears of rent, was also highlighted as a defence to the claim of wilful default. As regards the other ground of eviction the tenant would contend that he has been doing business continuously in the said premises and that the claim that he has stopped his business or that he had ceased to occupy the premises is incorrect.

(3.) At trial the landlord examined himself as PW 1 and the tenant was examined as RW 1. While exhibits PI to P3 were produced by the landlord exhibits R1 to R18 were produced by the tenant. Upon a consideration of the evidence on record the learned Rent Controller accepted the defence of the tenant to the effect that he will be absolved of the consequences of default since he had paid the entire arrears before the first hearing of the Rent Control Original Petition. The learned Rent Controller also, on the basis of the documents produced by the tenant demonstrating that he had paid electricity charges, telephone charges etc, rejected the claim of the landlord that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building. On the said findings the learned Rent Controller concluded that the landlord is not entitled to succeed and dismissed the eviction petition. Aggrieved, the landlord preferred an appeal in R.C.A. No: 65 of 2007. The learned Appellate Authority upon a reconsideration of the evidence on record concluded that since the landlord had not issued the two months notice demanding rent he cannot be heard to contend that the tenant has committed wilful default on payment of rent. The Appellate Authority also agreed with the conclusions of the learned Rent Controller on the question of the tenant ceasing to occupy the building. Upon the said conclusions the learned Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. Hence this Revision by the landlord.