R.LAZARUS Vs. ANN DURAISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred by the petitioner/tenant under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, challenging the order dated 10.11.2009 made in M.P. No. 459 of 2009 in R.C.A. No. 61 of 2004 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority/VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. It is a glaring example for the abuse of process of law and court by the revision petitioner/tenant, who has not paid the admitted rent for more than fourteen years, in spite of the concurrent findings of the learned Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No. 669 of 2001 and the Rent Control Appellate Authority, by order dated 10.11.2009 passed in M.P. No. 459 of 2009 in R.C.A. No. 61 of 2004 and also the conditional order dated 31.08.2012, passed by this Court in M.P. No. 1 of 2009 in this Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) Mrs. Padmini Lazarus, learned counsel for the petitioner is admittedly the wife of the petitioner, R. Lazarus, who is said to be an Assistant Commissioner of Customs as stated by him in M.P. No. 1 of 2009. Mrs. Padmini Lazarus, who was examined as R.W.2 on 09.12.2003 in the R.C.O.P., has admitted in her cross-examination, that her husband the petitioner herein is the tenant for the R.C.O.P. premises. However, contrary to her own evidence, given as sworn statement, in the memorandum of grounds relating to the Civil Revision Petition, in paragraph number 8, raised a plea on behalf of the petitioner, that the wife of the petitioner (Mrs. Padmini Lazarus) is the tenant of the said premises. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the aforesaid total self-contrary plea is a false statement given by the petitioner and his wife, Mrs. Padmini Lazarus, who is also the counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, neither the petitioner nor his wife has paid any rent for about 14 years to the respondent/landlady, since June 1998 without any justification in spite of the orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority. However, the matter is being protracted by the petitioner and his counsel Mrs. Padmini Lazarus against law by raising false defence sending various letters to the Hon'ble Chief Justice with incorrect and false averments, when the matter was pending before various Judges of this Court, including this Court.

(3.) A conditional order dated 31.08.2012 was passed by this Court in M.P. No. 1 of 2009, after hearing both the learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant as well as the respondent/landlady, whereby the petitioner/tenant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- towards arrears of rent directly to the respondent/landlady or deposit the same to the credit of RCA No. 61 of 2004 without prejudice to the claim of both the parties, as the arrears of rent was more than the said amount. As per the findings of the Court below, the petitioner/tenant has not paid the rent, since June, 1998 to till the date of the order for 137 months. Apart from the non-compliance of the conditional order dated 31.08.2012, continuously there was no representation for the petitioner for obvious reason. Hence having considered the arguments already advanced by both the learned counsel Mrs. Padmini Lazarus and Mr. Vineeth Kumar and having perused the entire original records called for from the Court below, this order is passed by this Court on merits.