V RAMADOSS Vs. UDAYAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the concurrent finding of fact rendered by the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority that the petitioners herein as tenants have committed wilful default in making the payment of rent in respect of the respective premises. However, the other ground, under which the eviction was sought for by the landlord i. e. for demolition and reconstruction has been rejected by the rent Controller. Since the relief of eviction has been granted on the ground of wilful default, the respondent landlord thought it fit not to agitate the matter before the appellate authority. However the aggrieved tenants carried the matter on appeal before the appellate authority only to have an order of seal of approval of the order of the Rent Controller. Incidentally, it has to be stated that the authorities below have taken note of the stand taken by the tenants in their counter denying title of the landlord and granted the relief of eviction on the ground of denial of title also. THE said orders are now put in issue in the present revision petitions.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the appellate authority has come to the conclusion to grant the relief to the respondent on the ground of denial of title rather than to discuss the point in issue as to whether the petitioners have committed wilful default. He further contended that the appellate authority having given the finding that the denial of title is not bonafide and only a malafide without any further discussion as to the ground of wilful default i. e. , whether the petitioner committed wilful default in making the payment of rent jumped to the conclusion that the tenants have committed wilful default.

(3.) IN para 17 and 18 of the judgment in J. J. LAL PVT. LTD. VS. M. R. MURALI case (cited above), which the learned counsel for the respondent relied, the Apex Court has held as follows: "17. A plea taken by the defendant in written statement can itself be made a ground for allowing relief to the plaintiff subject to well known limitations. The plea taken in the written statement should by itself be enough as furnishing a ground for relief to the plaintiff the plea taken by the defendant does not stand in need of any further pleadings being joined by the party, an issue is framed and put to trial unless the facts of the case show that the parties actually went to trial fully alive to the real issue between them and had opportunity of adducing evidence, that is, to put it in other words, the parties know that the plea taken in the written statement too was subject matter of trial and could form basis for relief to the plaintiff. IN such case, though the pleadings may be lacking or there may be failure to frame an issue or a specific issue, the applicability of law laid down by this Court in NAGUBAI AMMAL AND OTHERS VS. B. SHAMA RAO AND OTHERS (1956 SCR 451) would be attracted.