LATHA Vs. K.R.SHANTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A re'sume' of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus: The Revision Petitioners, viz. Latha and Balasubramanian are referred to as tenants and the respondents Shantha and Krishnan are referred to as the landlords hereunder. The respondents/landlords leased out the demised premises which is a residential one for the occupation of the tenants for a monthly rent of Rs.1,800/- and it was enhanced to Rs.2,100/- subsequently. According to the landlords, the tenants defaulted in paying the rent ever since 01.05.2009 till the filing of the RCOP, on 31.10.2010. The landlords also required the premises for the occupation of their sons including their married son. The tenants resisted the RCOP on various grounds.

(2.) UP went the trial during which on the landlords' side, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and no documents were marked. On the side of the tenants, Exs.R1 to R8 were marked. Ultimately, the RCOP was allowed on both the grounds, as against which an appeal was preferred for nothing but to be dismissed, confirming the order of the Lower Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner would implore and entreat by placing reliance on the grounds of revision that huge advance amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) was paid by the tenants to the landlords at the time of entering into the premises and there was no default in payment of rent. Even for argument's sake it is taken that there were arrears from 01.05.2009 till 31.10.2010, the arrears comes to Rs.36,800/- but the advance available with the landlords is Rs.50,000/- and after adjustment of the arrears, still there is Rs.13,200/- as advance and both the Courts failed to take note of the same. In fact the landlords were not in a habit of issuing rent receipts. The plea that the premises is required for owners occupation is nothing but a ruse to evict the tenants from the premises. The landlords are having several houses in the same Town and hence they were not in any dire necessity to get evicted the tenants. Therefore, the counsel would pray for dismissal of the RCOP after setting aside the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below.