S K RAJAPANDIAN Vs. A KESAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is at the instance of the tenant against whom an order of eviction has been passed. The respondent filed R.C.O.P. No. 1413/86 For eviction under S. 10(2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as the ?Act?, on the ground that the petitioner has committed acts of waste which are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the premises let. The respondent filed an application under S. 11 of the Act in M.P. No. 1414/of 1986. That was contested by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that what was leased to him was only the land and not the building and the provisions of the Act would not apply. According to him, even the petition for eviction was not maintainable. In the petition under S.ll also he raised the same dispute. There was no dispute with regard to the rent payable by the petitioner to the respondent. Nor was there any dispute as regard the quantum of arrears at the time when the application under S.ll of the Act was filed. What happened was that the petitioner was sending rent by money order showing it as rent for land. The respondent had refused to receive the same as he had shown it as rent for land. According to the respondent, what was let out was only the building.

(2.) BY order dated 31-3-1987, the Rent Con troller held that the petitioner was liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month and he should deposit in the court on or before 6.4.87 the entire arrears due as on that date. It should be mentioned at this stage that when the petition was being heard by the Rent Controller, both parties filed number of documents in support of their respective con tentions in the main case. The respondent filed as many as 13 documents and the petitioner filed two documents.

(3.) AS a part of the narration, it should be mentioned that the order of this court in C.R.P. No. 536/89 was challenged by the petitioner in S.L.P No. 1526/90 in the Supreme Court and the Special Leave petition was dismissed. The Supreme Court dismissed that petition in lirnini on 27-7-1990 observing that any observation made in the High Court judgment shall not be treated to have concluded the dispute between the parties when the appeal before the first appellate court is heard.