S. KALAIMANI Vs. N. SADASIVAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order dtd. 19/10/2019 passed in R.C.A.No.7 of 2019 on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Sub Judge, Erode) reversing the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.13 of 2018 dtd. 15/3/2019 on the file of the learned Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif, Erode).

(2.) The brief facts of the case in the nutshell are as follows:- The respondent, who is the petitioner in R.C.O.P.No.13 of 2018 is the tenant and the petitioners, who are the respondents in the said petition are the landlords. The said petition was filed to permit the respondent / petitioner to deposit the rent amount at the rate of Rs.12,000.00 per month for the period between June 2018 and July 2018 and also to deposit future rent to the court, on the ground that the petitioners refused to receive the amount and hence, the rent was sent through money order and again, the same was also returned. The petitioners / respondents resisted the same by way of filing a counter. The said petition was dismissed. As against the same, the respondent/tenant, preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.7 of 2019 and counter was filed by the petitioners, the said appeal was allowed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority by reversing the finding in R.C.O.P.No.13 of 2018. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners / landlord have filed the present Revision Petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners / landlord submits that the respondent / tenant sent the rent for the month of June 2018 at the rate of Rs.12,000.00 to the petitioners. Since the respondent / tenant agreed to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.20,000.00, the petitioners did not receive the same. Thereafter, the respondent / tenant did not come forward to pay the agreed enhanced rent and if the respondent has sent the enhanced rent of Rs.20,000.00, the petitioners would not have returned the money order. The sole intention of the respondent is to continue the tenancy at the rate of Rs.12,000.00 only, for which the respondent is not entitled to. Since the procedures enumerated under Ss. 8(1) to 8(4) of the Tamilnadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act has not been followed, the court below dismissed the said petition. As against the same, the respondents / landlord preferred an appeal, in the said appeal, the appellate authority held that deliberately the bank account particulars is not given by the landlord, hence allowed the said appeal. As against the same, this present petition has been preferred, thereby pleaded to set aside the order passed by the appellate authority.