BHAVUNAMBAL Vs. N SELVAM AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revisions are directed by the unsuccessful tenants before both the forums below against the order passed under Sec. 11 (4)of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as'the Act' )to stop proceedings and also the consequential order of eviction passed in the main R. C. O. P.

(2.) THE brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of these two revisions are as follows: THE respondent herein (Landlord) filed r. C. O. P. No. 10 of 1987 against the tenant Sankar Chettiar (who died and whose legal representatives are the revision-petitioners) under Secs. 10 (2) (i ) and 14 (1) (b) of the Act on the ground that tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent from August, 1986 till December, 1986, for 5 months and also for demolition and reconstruction on the ground that the building is aged about 80 years and requires demolition and reconstruction. THE said petition was resisted by the tenant. When the enquiry was pending, the respondent-landlord filed a petition, I. ANo. 137 of 1987 under Sec. 11 (4) of the Act alleging that the tenant has not paid the rents for the subsequent period. THE tenant paid a sum of Rs. 1500 and the said petition was terminated. Again another petition was filed in I. A. No. 88 of 1989 under Sec. 11 (4) of the Act alleging that the tenant has not paid the rent for the period from January, 1987 to January, 1989 to the extent of Rs. 3,750 and out of the sum, Rs. 2,500 alone was paid and the balance of Rs. 1,250 is payable. Hence the respondent-landlord prayed for a direction not to permit the tenant to take part in the eviction proceedings and allow the petition. THE said application was resisted by the tenant. While denying the said allegations, it is stated that these applications were filed in order to evict the tenant from the premises with mala fide intention. THE respondent-landlord was not in the habit of issuing receipts. THE tenant has paid the rent for the month of January, 1987 to the respondent directly, and for the months of February and March, 1987, he paid the rent on 5. 4. 1987 to the mother-in-law of the respondent, one Yasodai Ammal. She also received the rent for April, 1987 on 21. 5. 1987 on behalf of the respondent. He also sent a sum of Rs. 750 by money order being the rent up to the period of September, 1987. After the filing of the petition, he paid Rs. 1 ,500 and he is not liable to pay any rent. He has already narrated all the facts in I. ANo. 137 of 1987. He has to pay rent for a period of six months upto March, 1989. Since the respondent was in the habit of receiving rent in lump sums and not in the habit of receiving rent every month, he would pay the rent to him. THE allegation that the tenant was in arrears of rent of Rs. 1 ,750 is false. After the filing of the petition, the Rent Controller directed the tenant to pay a sum of Rs. 1 ,950 on or before 22. 8. 1989, after deducting a sum of Rs. 750 only, in his order dated 8. 8. 1989. THE tenant paid a sum of Rs. 500 on 22. 8. 1989 towards arrears of rent before the rent Controller, to the respondent-landlord, and another sum of Rs. 300 on 11. 9. 1989. After deducting the said sum of Rs. 800, it was found that the balance of 1,150 was not paid. Hence, I. A. No. 88 of 1989 under Sec. ll (4) of the Act was allowed on 3. 10. 1989 and on the same day the consequent order of eviction was passed in the main petition, r. C. O. P. No. 10 of 1987. Challenging the said order, the tenant preferred appeals before the appellate authority and he was unsuccessful. In the meantime, the tenant died and his legal representatives were added and they are the revision-petitioners herein.