C K SUBRAMANIAN Vs. C K RAMASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is the petitioner. The landlord (respondent herein) filed R. C. O. P. 200 of 1966 before the Rent Controller, Coimbatore, on 6-6-1966 for eviction of the tenant on the ground of his willful default in the payment of rent. The landlord contended that the respondent became his tenant from 2-9-1964 on a monthly rent of Rs. 85, that he did not pay the rent from 2-9-1964 till the date of the application namely 6-6-1966, that on 16-4-1966 the tenant sent by M. O. Rs. 50 which was refused because it was not correct amount, and that, therefore, the respondent is liable to be evicted. The plea of tenant is that the rent fixed was Rs. 50 per month, that he and the landlord are brothers, that he filed a suit against the landlord in Sub Court in respect of a mortgage executed by him in his favour and that the landlord refused to receive the rent for the months of March and April sent by him by M. O. The Rent Controller, found that willful default on the part of the tenant in payment of the rent has not been made out and dismissed petition. On appeal the Principal Subordinate Judge (Appellate Authority) Coimbatore, confirmed the decision of the Rent Controller holding that the landlord failed to establish that the tenant committed willful default in payment of the rent and dismissed the appeal. The landlord filed C. R. P. 3264 of 1968 in the court of the district Judge (revisional authority), Coimbatore. The learned Judge held that the rent payable for the building us Rupees 85 and not Rupees 50 and found by the appellate authority and the Rent Controller and that the tenant committed willful default in the payment of rent. In the result he allowed the civil revision petition and ordered eviction of the tenant. The tenant has filed the above civil revision petition against the order of the revisional authority.

(2.) I am of opinion that the Revisional authority (District Judge) has re-assessed the evidence on record and disturbed the finding of fact of the appellate authority which he is not entitled to do under Section 25 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and rent Control) Act. The appellate authority has held that the tenant is a lecturer in the Tiruchi Tutorial College, Coimbatore, of which the landlord is the Secretary, that the tenant is brother of the landlord, and that the tenant filed a suit on a mortgage against his brother (landlord ). The landlord as a consequence filed the above application to evict the tenant. There is a controversy regarding the rate of rent. The appellant authority held that the rent for the premises was only Rs. 50, that the tenant sent the rent to the landlord by M. O. and that there was no default in payment of rent. In the result the appellate authority dismissed the application of the landlord for eviction. The revisional authority considered that it is competent for him to re-appraise the evidence, that the fact that the tenant filed a suit improbabilised the tender of rent by the tenant to the landlord, and that the tenant committed default in the payment of rent. The Revisional Authority held that, as the prior tenant admittedly paid Rs. 50 the probability was that the rent payable by the present tenant should be higher and that the rent of Rs. 85 claimed by the landlord is the correct one. The Revisional Authority came to the conclusion that the March rent was not paid and therefore there was default on the part of the tenant in payment of rent.

(3.) THE jurisdiction of the District Judge in revision is considered in a number of decisions of this court, particularly the decision in Sasivarna Thevar v. Ponnu, 1957-1 Mad LJ 158 at page 159 where Rajamanner, J. (as he then was) followed the decision of Rajagopala Ayyangar, J. in C. R. P. No. 1420 of 1954 (Mad) (unreported ). The passage extracted by the learned Judge from the judgment of rajagopala Ayyangar, J. is as follows:-