RAJA Vs. BALASUBRAMANIA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice before admission was issued and after service of such notice, the respondent is before this court represented by a counsel. The arguments advanced by Mr.S.Sounthar, learned counsel for the petitioner and by Mr.J.Franklin, learned counsel for the respondent are heard. The materials produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused.

(2.) Admittedly the revision petitioner was a tenant in respect of the petition premises, namely a non-residential portion, under the respondent herein and the agreed rent is Rs.500/- per month. The petition premises was taken by the revision petitioner for running his biscuit and candy business. The respondent herein (landlord), alleging willful default in payment of rent and also bonafide requirement for his son's business as additional accommodation, filed RCOP No.2/2008 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif, Nagapattinam) seeking eviction of the revision petitioner/tenant under Sections 10(2)(i)and 10(3)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

(3.) The Rent Control Original Petition was resisted by the revision petitioner/tenant contending that he himself has obtained electricity service connection in his name for the petition premises making the necessary deposit to the Electricity Board; that in 1985 when the building was found with dilapidation making it unfit for running the business, he himself renovated the building with his own money with the consent of the landlord; that the respondent/landlord demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the development of his son's business with an offer to adjust the interest towards the rent and that when the revision petitioner/tenant expressed his inability, the respondent/landlord, besides intimidating the revision petitioner/tenant with goondas, chose to file the RCOP for eviction. It was also contended by the revision petitioner that for the month of May 2008, the rent (Rs.500/-) was sent to the respondent/landlord by a demand draft dated 13.06.2008 and that the rents for the subsequent months were also sent in the form of demand drafts without leaving any arrears of rent to be paid by the revision petitioner/tenant. It was his further contention that the respondent herein/landlord, who was not in the habit of issuing receipts for the rents received, suppressing the said facts, had approached the Rent Controller for eviction on the ground of willful default. It was also contended that the requirement for additional accommodation was also not bonafide.