RAJAPPAN Vs. K.S. GEETHALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the tenant. The first respondent landlady filed R.C.O.P. No. 1639 of 2006 on the file of the Small Causes Court at Chennai against the petitioner seeking for his eviction from the petition mentioned premises on the ground of owner's occupation and wilful default. The period of wilful default stated by the landlady in the eviction petition was from April 2005 to August 2006. The said eviction petition was contested by the petitioner as the first respondent therein. The learned Rent Controller after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case rejected the petition in so far as the ground of owner's occupation is concerned and allowed the petition and granted an order of eviction on the ground of wilful default. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner herein preferred R.C.A. No. 647 of 2007 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Chennai. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority after holding that the default committed in payment of rent by the petitioner amounts to wilful default. Aggrieved against the concurrent finding of the courts below, in so far as the order of eviction made on the ground of wilful default is concerned, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the first respondent/landlady.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that both the courts below concurrently erred in holding that the default committed by the petitioner is wilful without considering the fact that an amount of Rs. 1.5 lakhs paid as advance towards the purchase of the property was lying with the landlady. He further submitted that as per Ex. R1 agreement the parties have agreed that the rent will be paid in lump sum at the time of execution of the sale deed and therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed wilful default in payment of rent. It is also contended by the learned counsel that when there was an agreement between the parties for the purchase of the property and the petitioner has also filed a suit for specific performance of the said agreement, the bonafide of the petitioner cannot be doubted much less to contend that the default committed by him was wilful.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that both the courts below have concurrently found against the petitioner that the default committed by him is wilful and ordered eviction. Such factual finding rendered by the courts below cannot be interfered with by this court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, more particularly, when there were no contra facts placed or proved against such factual findings rendered by the courts below. He also contended that the tenant himself had admitted that he defaulted in making the payment of rent from April 2005 to August 2006 at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- per month. When such being the admission, the burden is on the tenant to prove that the default was not wilful. Thus, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that in the absence of any materials placed before the Courts below to prove that the default was not wilful, the eviction ordered against the petitioner is fully justifiable and does not warrant any interference by this Court. The learned counsel also submitted that the suit filed by the tenant against the landlady seeking for specific performance of the agreement also ended against him by specifically holding that the petitioner was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Thus, he pleaded for rejecting this Civil Revision Petition.