P SELLA PILLAI Vs. L BALARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord is the revision petitioner before me. This revision petition arises out of the proceedings taken under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960), hereinafter referred to as the Act, on the following allegations.

(2.) THE petitioner claims that the property belongs to him. THE respondent became a tenant under him under Exhibit A-2, dated 10th July, 1969 agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 50 payable on 10th of every English calendar month, on default at Rs. 52 per month from the date of default. THE rent was paid regularly till 23rd August, 1972, admittedly and thereafter he failed to pay the rent and committed wilful default. This necessitated the landlord in preferring R.C.O.P. No. 36 of 1973. But the same was withdrawn, as there was a defect in the issue of notice as required under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It may be stated at this stage that the law was somewhat nebulous as regards the necessity of notice to the proceedings under the Rent Control Act. However, presently it is settled by the recent rulings of the Supreme Court that no such notice is required. When the respondent was called upon by a notice, dated 15th November, 1974 to vacate the premises and deliver possession by 10th December, 1974, he replied without complying with the said request. THErefore, on two grounds, eviction was sought viz.: (1) wilful default in payment of rent and (2) bona fide requirement of the building for his own use and occupation. Further, it was alleged, that the respondent had denied the title of the petitioner. This would be an added ground for evicion.

(3.) ON these pleadings when the matter was taken up for trial by the Rent Controller, he was of the view that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent and that there was no bona fide denial of title. However, the landlord had not made out the need for additional accommodation. Accordingly he ordereki eviction on two grounds, viz. wilful default in payment of rent and denial of title without bona fides. Against this order of eviction the matter was taken up in appeal by the tenant. The appellate Authority, in the first instance, remitted the matter. That order of remit was questioned in C.R.P. No. 65 of 1980, successfully by the landlord and a direction was given by this Court in the said revision petition that the matter had to be gone into by the lower appellate Authority himself. Therefore by an order, dated 18th December, 1980, the appellate Authority was of the view that because of the notices issued under Exhibits B-l and B-4 to B-6, there was an imminent threat of eviction and it was on that the tenant was obliged to deny the title. It was also noted that those notices had mentioned the petition-property as the subject-matter of eviction. Under those circumstances, the lower appellate Court went to the extent of holding that the revision petitioner herein did not have title and, therefore, he would not be entitled to receive rent. ON these findings the appeal was allowed. It is to revise this order, the present revision petition has been preferred.