T K GOVINDARAJULU NAIDU Vs. B DHANRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord is the petitioner in this civil ,revision petition. He his the owner of premises bearing old door No. 4 (New No. 5) .Old Slaughter House St, Choolai Madras 7. The respondent is in occupation of that premises as a tenant under the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/- payable on the first of the succeeding month. The respondent, according to the Petitioner is a chronic defaulter in the payment of rents. In 1978, the respondent was in arrears and a notice was sent to him demanding the arrears and only then the arrears were paid. The respondent was also warned against irregular payment of rent and though the petitioner insisted on prompt payment of rents, it did not have any effect on the respondent. Again, the respondent did not pay the rent for the period from August 1978 to May 1979 i. e. for a period of about ten months. The, default in the payment of rents, according to the case of the petitioner, was only willful. A notice dated 28-7-1. 979 were issued to the respondent; but the respondent evaded service. On the ground that the petitioner had thus committed willful default in the payment of rents for period mentioned above the petitioner filed H.R. C. 1744 of 1979 under S. 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (18 of 1960) as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (here in after called as the Act), praying for an order of eviction.

(2.) In his counter them respondent, while admitting the tenancy, stated that at the inception of the tenancy, the rent was only Rs. 45/- per month and he had been regularly paying the rents. Owing to the scarcity of Aluminium metal, the respondent claimed that he could not run the factory and the petitioner, who had been gradually increasing -the rent, demanded enhanced rent at the rate of Rs. 100/ per month and since the respondent refused to pay the rent demanded by the petitioner. The petitioner was evading to receive the rents. The respondent also pleaded that as and when his bills were paid by the wholesale merchants to whom. he had supplied articles, he used to pay lump sum amounts as rent to the petitioner. The wilful default attributed to the, respondent was denied by him. The illness of his family members, one after another, was put forth by the respondent as the reason for the delay in the payment of rents. The respondent also, pleaded that on account of the financial difficulties, there was some delay in making payments and that cannot be construed to be wilful default. . The respondent referred to the proceedings. In execution taken by the petitioner in respect of the ex parte order of eviction obtained and the tender of rents by him and the acceptance of the same on 287-1979 by the petitioner and stated that on account to, of such payments, there was no willful default The notice sent by the petitioner was not evaded to be received by the respondent according to him. An objection was also raised that since no notice as per the provisions of the Act and the Transfer of Property Act bad been issued, the Rent Controller's court had no Jurisdiction to entertain the application for eviction.

(3.) Before the Rent Controller, (12th. Judge, Court of Small Causes) Madras, on behalf of the petitioner Exs. P1 to P3 were marked and the petitioner was examined as P.W. I. While on behalf of the respondents Exs R1 and R.2, were filed and the respondent examined himself, as R.W. 1. On a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence the Rent Controller, found that the respondent bad been totally indifferent in meeting his obligation to pay the rents to the petitioner for the last three years and particularly for the period in respect of which the petition had been filed and that such gross indifference would undoubtedly amount. to wilful default in the payment of rent's. On that conclusion, an order for eviction was passed against the respondent. Aggrieved by that the respondent preferred an appeal in H.R. A. 1169 of 1981 to the appellate authority. (4th Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras. The appellant authority was of the view that though there was no evidence that the petitioner had requested the respondent to make lump sum payments of rent yet the respondent had been making such payments once in few " months for some years and they had also been received, by the petitioner and, therefore, the non-payment of rents by the respondent for the period in question cannot be construed to be wilful default. On this reasoning, the appellate authority did not countenance the plea of the petitioner that an order of eviction should be passed against the respondent for willful default in the payment of rents. In the result, the appeal was allowed and the eviction it is correctness of this order that is challenged in this civil revision petition. filed by the petitioner was dismissed. It is correctness of this order that is challenged in this civil revision petition.