LAWS(MAD)-2003-4-17

A G KRISHNAMURTHY SINCE DEAD Vs. M JAYARAMAIAH

Decided On April 22, 2003
A.G.KRISHNAMURTHY Appellant
V/S
M.JAYARAMAIAH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisions are filed against the order dated 28.08.1996 in R.C.A.No.3 of 1993 and 2 of 1993 on the file of the Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri), against the orders passed in R.C.O.P.No.11 of 1990 and 9 of 1990 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif, Hosur).

(2.) The averments in R.C.O.P.No.9 of 1990 are that the petitioner is a tenant of a shop belonging to the respondent herein on a monthly rent of Rs.300/-; that the respondent having received the rent promptly up to July 1998, issued receipts therefor; that thereafter, the respondent did not receive the rent at all; that he did not issue receipt for the payments made for three months; that the respondent did not respond to the petitioner's request to name the bank in which he could deposit the rent; that the petitioner had paid Rs.5,000/- as advance; that on 18.4.1990, the respondent sent a notice to the petitioner to which the petitioner sent a reply on 16.5.1990 with a Cheque for Rs.6,300/- on Central Bank; that the said reply with Cheque had been returned by the respondent's advocate and that therefore, the petitioner has filed these petitions for deposit of the rent into Court under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act .

(3.) In his counter, the respondent has stated that it is not true that the petitioner had been a tenant for 12 years and he was paying the rent promptly; that the petitioner did not pay the rent from April 1998 i.e. a sum of Rs.7,800/-; that these respondents maintain a receipt book and the petitioner had signed therein for payment of rent; that the petitioner did not take steps as enunciated under the Rent Control Act that R.C.O.P.11 of 1990 filed by these respondents is pending; that it is not true that the petitioner had paid Rs.5,000/- towards advance; that the allegations that the reply by petitioner together with cheque was returned by the respondent was not true and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.