K RAJU Vs. GILFORD HILKISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is the revision petitioner. The respondent landlord filed H.R. C.O.P.No 3 of 1981 for eviction of the tenant under sections 10 (2) and 14 (i) of the Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960 on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent from Decern-ber, 1979 till date of petition for 14 months and for requirement of the building for demolition and reconstruction on the ground that the building is an old one. The tenant resisted the petition on the grounds that the landlord had sent a notice on 10th October, 1973, asking the tenant to vacate the demised building for the personal occupation of the landlord, that the tenant sent a reply denying the alleged requirement of the landlord at that time, that on 9th January, 1975, the landlord sent another notice asking the tenant to vacate the building on the ground that the building required renovation, that the tenant sent a reply denying the bona fides of the alleged requirement for renovation, that in 1978 the landlord filed H R.C.O.P. No. 7 of 1978 for eviction on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent, that the said eviction petition as well as the civil miscellaneous appeal filed by the landlord were dismissed, that the tenant was paying the rent regularly, that after the dismissal of the civil miscellaneous appeal, the tenant sent three months rent due for December, 1979 to February, 1980 by money order as the landlord refused to receive the rent after the dismissal of C.M.A.No. 6 of 1979, that the landlord refused to receive the amounts sent by money order and that thereafter the landlord has chesen to file H.R.C.O P.No.7 of 1978 for eviction on the ground of wilful default and that the tenant had deposited the entire arrears of rent immediately after the petition was filed and the landlord also has received the same from the Court.

(2.) The learned Rent Controller has, after examining the landlord and the tenant as well as the Commissioner, gave the findings on the question of wilful default that the tenant has not committed any wilful default in the payment of arrears of rent and on the question of requirement for demolition and reconstruction that the requirement is not a bona fide requirement, since the landlord is actuated by mala fide intention of throwing out the tenant. On such findings, the evic-tion petition has been dismissed without costs.

(3.) On appeal to the Appellate Authority (Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram), the Isarned appellate authority has differed from the Rent Controller and gave the finding that the tenant has committed wilful default in the payment of arrears of rent and that the requirement of the building is a bona fide requirement. Hence this revision Petition.