VENKATARAMANASAMY Vs. S SETHURAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the tenant as revision petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 20.4.1999 and made in R.C.A.No.60 of 1996 on the file of learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge), Coimbatore, reversing the order and decretal order dated 30.4.1996 and made in R.C.O.P.No.43 of 1995 on the file of the learned Rent Controller (District Munsif), Mettupalayam, so far as it relates to wilful default in payment of rent and for own use and occupation, but confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller with regard to act of waste.

(2.) The facts that are necessary for disposal of the Civil Revision Petition are as follows:- The respondent herein is the owner of the premises described in the Rent Control Original Petition and the revision petitioner is the tenant of the above said premises on a monthly rent of Rs.500/-. The rent is payable on or before 3rd of every succeeding calendar month. The revision petitioner was very irregular in payment of rent in spite of repeated demands and used to pay rent once in 3 or 4 months in lump sum in spite of objection raised by the respondent herein. The revision petitioner started tendering rent by mail transfer from 1.2.1985. After adjusting the amount paid towards of rent by mail transfer upto November, 1992, there is a balance of Rs.24,000/- towards the rent payable upto 3.12.1992. The revision petitioner has committed wilful default in payment of rent. The revision petitioner has also put up construction on the eastern portion of the demised premises without the permission of the respondent herein and therefore, he has committed act of waste. The respondent herein was employed in M/s. South India Viscose Limited, Sirumugai and he was in occupation of quarters allotted by the said company. The respondent herein resigned his job and vacated the quarters allotted to him. The respondent herein is in occupation of a lease-hold premises owned by one Appachi Chettiar, Mettupalayam on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- and by paying advance of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent herein. Owning no other building in Mettupalayam, the respondent herein requires the demised building for his own use and occupation. It is on these grounds, the respondent herein, as petitioner has sought for eviction of the revision petitioner from the demised premises.

(3.) The revision petitioner as respondent before the Rent Control Court has resisted the claim made by the respondent herein as petitioner on the following grounds:- The revision petitioner is the tenant of the demised premises under the respondent herein on a monthly rent of Rs.500/-. The revision petitioner has paid an advance of Rs.6,000/- at the time of entering into a lease agreement for a period of two years from 15.5.1983. After the expiry of period of two years, the revision petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the demised premises as a tenant holding over. For the rent paid by the revision petitioner to the respondent herein, no receipt was issued. The respondent herein had also not come to collect rent for 4 months and therefore, he sent the rent by mail transfer on 5.11.1986. For the subsequent payment of the monthly rent by cash, the respondent herein has not issued receipt. In order to have record for payment of rent, the revision petitioner has started sending rent by mail transfer to the respondent herein. The said payment of rent by mail transfer was received without any protest. The revision petitioner is not in arrears of rent to an extent of Rs.24,000/-. There is no arrears of rent. The revision petitioner has not committed wilful default in payment of rent. This revision petitioner has not put up any unauthorised construction on the eastern portion of the demised premises as alleged by the respondent herein. The revision petitioner has not committed act of waste. The requirement of the demised premises for own use and occupation on the ground that he has vacated the quarters allotted to him as an employee of M/s. South India Viscose Limited, Sirumugai, is not correct. The respondent herein has to prove that he is in possession of a rental premises on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- and with an advance of Rs.5,000/- at Mettupalayam. The respondent herein has attempted to take possession of the demised premises by force and therefore, the revision petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.1162 of 1989 on the file of the District Munsif, Coimbatore and obtained an order of injunction. This petition has been filed only at the instigation of one T.S.Natarajan to lease the said property for higher rent. It is on these grounds, the revision petitioner as respondent has sought for dismissal of the petition.