K.UGRAPANDIAN Vs. K.E.RAMALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the tenant. He is aggrieved against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller confirmed by the Appellate Authority on the ground of wilful default. The Respondent/Landlord filed R.C.O.P. No. 179 of 2009 on the file of the Small Causes Court, Chennai, seeking eviction of the petitioner/tenant on the grounds of wilful default and owner's occupation. The said RCOP was filed on 22.01.2009. The rent payable by the tenant is Rs. 3,225/- per month. He also paid an advance amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards interest free security deposit. The default period stated in the Eviction Petition is from 01.07.2008 to 22.01.2009, being the date of filing the Eviction Petition. The learned Rent Controller, while allowing the Eviction Petition on the ground of wilful default, dismissed the same in respect of the other ground viz., owner's occupation, by his order, dated 08.12.2009. The petitioner/tenant filed R.C.A. No. 1 of 2010 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority. The learned Appellate Authority also confirmed order of eviction on the ground of wilful default through the Judgment, dated 03.07.2012. Aggrieved against the concurrent findings of the authorities below, on the ground of wilful default, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed before this Court.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that even though there was a default between 01.07.2008 to 31.12.2008, the same cannot be treated as wilful default in view of the fact that admittedly the Landlord was in possession of an advance amount of Rs. 25,000/- and consequently, he is not entitled to file Eviction Petition on the ground of wilful default. He further submitted that the petitioner in fact filed R.C.O.P. No. 1322 of 2009 under Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, seeking permission to deposit the rent in to the Court. Even though, the said RCOP came to be dismissed by the Court, on 08.12.2010, for want of certified copy only, the tenant has not filed any revision against the said order so far. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel that there is no wilful default on the part of the tenant in paying the rent.