KARRA KONDAMMA Vs. KARRA NAGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is against the order in R.C.A.No.5 of 1986 dated 12.11.19S6 of the appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

(2.) THE petitioners herein is the landlord. THE petitioner herein filed a petition under Sec.l0(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for eviction of the tenant in respect of a residential premises No.16, Perumal Koil Garden, 10th Lane, Sowcarpet, on the ground of wilful default. THE Rent Controller allowed the petition. THE respondent/tenant preferred an appeal before the appellate authorily in R.C.A.No.3 of 1986 and the same was allowed. Aggrieved by the said order of the appellate authority, the petitioner/landlord, has preferred this revision petition.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/tenant submitted that both the Rent Controller and the appellate authority erred in law in assuming that the facts of the instant case will come under Explanation to Sec.10(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the landlord after issuing a notice under Ex.P-8 dated 6.9.1984 has filed the petition for eviction before the expiry of two months, to tender the rent and as such, the landlord is not entitled for the benefit of presumption of wilful default given in the Explanation to Sec.10 of the Act. Therefore, both the Rent Controller and the appellate authority erred in assuming that the facts of the instant case came under the benefit of Explanation to Sec. 10(2) of the Act. In this connection, the learned counsel for the respondent cited the ruling of the Supreme Court reported in S. Sundaram v. V.R.Pattabiraman, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 582 and in particular para. 62 wherein the Supreme Court has observed as follows: