MINOR RAJAKUMARI Vs. N V NATARAJAN (MADRAS)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition has been preferred by the landlord against the order of the appellate authority (Sub Court), Nagapattinam, in R.C.A. No. 7 of 1985 reversing the order passed by the Rent Controller (District Munsif) Nannilam, in R.C.O.P. No.5 of 1984 and dismissing that application filed by the petitioner praying for an order of eviction against the respondent herein under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(2.) According to the case of the petitioner, the premises in the occupation of the respondent was purchased from one Sabeeya Bivi on 7.11.1983 and the petitioner is under the care and protection of the grandfather and grandmother, who are living in a rented premises in 20-H, Kochipalayam Street, Ohai, Kodavasal, and that the premises is bonafide required for the occupation of the petitioner. It addition, the petitioner also stated that the respondent had committed wilful default in the payment of rents from 7.11.1983 till February, 1984 to the tune of Rs. 168/-. On the aforesaid grounds, the petitioner prayed for an order of eviction against the respondent. The application was resisted by the respondent herein on the ground that the petitioner was living in her own house in Chai and that the requirement is not bonafide. The further case of the respondent was that the rents upto December, 1983 had been paid to the vendor of the petitioner and that the rent for January, 1984 was sent, after the receipt of notice, by Money Order and that was returned and the default in the payment of rent cannot, therefore, be considered to be wilful. On a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the Rent Controller found that the petitioner had established her bonafide requirement of the premises in the occupation of the respondent under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act and that the respondent had also committed wilful default in the payment of rents. On the conclusions so arrived at, an order of eviction was passed against the respondent. Aggrieved by this, the respondent preferred an appeal in R.C.A. No.7 of 1985 before the appellate authority. That authority, however, found that the requirement of the petitioner was not bonafide and that the respondent has not committed wilful default. In view of the conclusions so arrived at, the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller was set aside and the application for eviction was also dismissed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the appellate authority fell into an error in regard to the conclusions arrived at by it on the question of wilful default and also on the bonafide requirement under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act. According to the learned counsel, there is no evidence with reference to the payment of rents between 7.11.1983 and December, 1983 with the vendor of the petitioner and likewise there is no material to support the case of payment of any rent by the respondent to the petitioner from January, 1984 onwards. In regard to requirement under Section 10(3)(a)(i) learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the parents of the petitioner were both employed and the petitioner had to be taken care of by her grand-parents and as they were living in a rented house, there was no wrong in the petitioner having come forward with the application for requirement of the premises owned by her in order to enable her to live therein with her grandparents. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there was no question of any wilful default whatever on the facts and circumstances of this case. According to her, the rents upto December, 1983 had been paid by the respondent and this had also been not objected to by the petitioner and there was, therefore, no question of non-payment of rents between 7.11.1983 and 31.12.1983. With reference to the rent for January, 1984 learned counsel pointed out that the rent had been remitted by Money Order, but that it was refused by the petitioner. This had been accepted by P.W.1 and therefore there could be no question of wilful default in the matter of payment of rents, according to the learned counsel. In addition, it was also submitted that the petitioner was aged only about 3 years old at the time of the eviction petition and she could not have entertained any desire to live in her own premises and the requirement, therefore, cannot be regarded as bonafide. From the evidence available, it is seen that the respondent had paid the rents with the vendor of the petitioner till the end of December, 1983. This had also not been in any manner objected to by the petitioner, as per the evidence of P.W.1. With reference to the rent payable for the month of January, 1984 it could have been paid till the end of February, 1984 and a Money Order was sent by the respondent to the petitioner for that amount and this has also been accepted by W.P.1. There is also no dispute that the Money Order so sent was refused. Thereafter, it was open to the respondent to have followed the procedure laid down in the Act with reference to the depositing of rent, but instead he had opened an account and had been depositing the rents in that account so as to make it available to the petitioner whenever required. though it may be that the respondent was not in order in not having resorted to the provisions of the Act with reference to the payment of rents, insasmuch as the evidence of R.W.1. that he had deposited the amounts in a bank account has not been repudiated or rejected as unacceptable, it follows that there could not be any wilful default as such in the payment of rents in this case, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner.