N SUNDARESAN Vs. S CHANDRASEKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TENANT is the revision petitioner.

(2.) THE respondent/landlord filed petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default. It is the case of the respondent/landlord that the rent for the premises is Rs.1600/= per month and the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent from 1.1.2002 to 31.5.2003 and therefore, he is liable to be evicted. The revision petitioner contested the application stating that the rent for the premises is not Rs.1600/= per month and it is only Rs.1200/= per month and he has paid an advance of Rs.25,000/= and he has paid rent upto May 2003 and the same has been acknowledged by the landlord in the chit given by him and from the month of June 2003, he was liable to pay the rent and the landlord refused to receive the rent when tendered and therefore, he sent the rent by money order and that was refused and for the month of July also, he sent the rent by money order and that was also refused and the landlord attempted to evict him by force and therefore, after giving complaint to the police, he filed the suit in O.S.No.3330 of 2003 and also obtained an order of injunction in I.A.No.1148 of 2003 and he also filed application in R.C.O.P.No.1799 of 2003 under section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act for depositing the rent and he has been depositing the rent into court as per the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.1799 of 2003 and therefore, there is no default much less wilful default committed by the revision petitioner/tenant.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that both the courts below failed to appreciate the fact that the revision petitioner/tenant filed R.C.O.P.No.1799 of 2003 for depositing the rent and as per the order passed in that petition, he was regular in depositing the rent and that fact is also proved by the revision petitioner by getting an order from the court to withdraw the amount deposited by him in compliance with the conditional order in R.C.A.No.107 of 2004 and thereafter also, the rent was paid regularly and there is no arrears of rent and the tenant has not committed wilful default and the landlord has admitted in evidence that he was having a note where he maintained the rent paid by each tenant and he suppressed that document despite the notice given and when the landlord suppressed the said document which would prove the payment of rent by the tenant, the court ought to have drawn adverse inference against the landlord and ought to have held that till May 2003, the rent has been paid and the case of the landlord that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent from 1.1.2002 ought to have been rejected. He also brought to my notice the findings given in R.C.O.P.No.1799 of 2003 wherein the Rent Controller held that the rent form January 2004 to 2006 was deposited by the tenant and therefore, submitted that the tenant has not committed any default much less wilful default and the court below, without properly appreciating the conduct of the landlord, erred in passing the order of eviction and the eviction order is liable to be set aside.