C T MEYAMMAI Vs. S MOHAMED KAMIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlady is the revision petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the judgment passed in the Rent Control Appeal preferred by tenant, which was allowed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority setting aside the eviction of the tenant from the petition non-residential premises in the ground floor bearing Door No. 108 Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai - 17, ordered by the Rent Controller on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent.

(2.) The landlady as petitioner filed the Rent Control Original Petition stating that the respondent is a tenant under the petitioner in respect of a portion in the ground floor in the premises bearing Door No. 108 Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai - 17, and is carrying on business in textile shop on a monthly rent of Rs.900/-. The respondent is irregular in payment of rent and inspite of repeated demands, he used to pay the rent by cheques belatedly. The respondent issued a cheque dated 25.9.1991 in favour of the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 7200/- towards arrears of rent from January 1991 to August 1991 and when the cheque was presented for encashment, it was returned with endorsement 'Insufficient Funds'. The return of the cheque was intimated to the staff of the respondent since the respondent was not available to be personally contacted. The dishonour of cheque issued towards arrears of rent is nothing but wilful and as such, the respondent is liable to be evicted from the petition premises on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent.

(3.) The Rent Control Original Petition was challenged by the tenant as respondent by filing counter admitting tenancy and quantum of rent and further stating that he is running the business in the name and style of 'Fashion 'N' Style' as a Proprietory concern, which was carried on in the name and style of 'Shams Textiles'. The unaccounted money equal to the rental amount was paid in advance for the entire year and accordingly, when the respondent went to Australia in January 1991, he paid the unaccounted money for the entire year 1991. He also issued two post-dated cheques dated 15.02.1991 and 28.3.1991 for Rs.1800/- each towards the rent for the months of October 1990 to December 1990 and January 1991. The respondent instructed his wife to pay the rent alone to the petitioner's son Rajendran from February 1991. Though the respondent signed the cheque leaves and handed over the same to his wife to enable her to pay the rent, the petitioner's son Rajendran did not collect rent from the wife of the respondent. When it was tendered to the petitioner's son Rajendran through the Accountant, it was not accepted on some pretext. The bearer cheque (uncrossed) for a sum of Rs.7200/- dated 25.9.1991 drawn on Vijaya Bank, Adyar Branch, was issued on 24.9.1991 instructing Rajendran to present the same at 10.00 am on 25.9.1991. But the cheque was presented at 8.30 am on 25.9.1991 and was returned. The respondent's accountant deposited a sum of Rs.7200/- at 9.00 am on 25.9.1991. The return of the cheque was not informed to the wife of the respondent till the eviction notice was received by her from the Court in the Rent Control Original Petition. It is stated that inasmuch as the entire amount was deposited on 25.9.1991, there is no wilful default as claimed by the landlord. It is also stated that when the wife of the respondent contacted the son of the petitioner Mani, on receipt of the eviction notice, he informed her that the matter can be amicably settled on return of the respondent to India. On his return to India on 12.02.1992, the respondent changed the counsel on record and paid the entire rental amount of Rs.10,800/- for the period from February 1991 to January 1992. There was no wilfulness or any deliberate attitude on the part of the respondent in withholding the rent. On these grounds, the respondent / tenant sought for dismissal of the petition.