S CHELLASAMY Vs. A ATHILAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful tenant in respect of the order of eviction from the petition non-residential premises on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent by the learned Rent Controller and as confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, is the revision petitioner.

(2.) The respondent/landlord filed the Rent Control Original Petition that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent for the months of February, 1996 to October, 1997 for 21 months at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. The respondent/landlord claims that she is the owner of the property on the death of her husband Alagarsamy Asari as per registered settlement deed executed in her favour and their sons and daughters born through her. It is also stated in the petition that though the tenant paid the rent till January, 1996, thereafter he has committed default in payment of rent from February, 1996 to October, 1997 stating that some other persons are claiming title to the property and as such he would deposit the rent in R.C.O.P.No.9 of 1996 filed under Section 9(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, but even in the petition he has not deposited the rent.

(3.) The petition was resisted in the counter that the landlady is the second wife of Alagarsamy Asary and on the death of Alagarsamy Asari, the other issues of the deceased Alagarsamy Asari also claimed rental amount and so the tenant filed R.C.O.P.No.9 of 1996 under Section 9(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and the petition was dismissed after contest. Thereafter, the tenant has been paying rental amount regularly to the respondent's counsel and to the respondent by money order. In fact, the rent for the month of February, 1999 was received by the landlady on 4.3.1999. It is also set out in the counter that in the fire accident, the entire building was gutted out, as a result of which, the tenancy agreement between them came to and a fresh agreement was entered into between them. The superstructure was totally put up by the tenant and the vacant site alone was leased and as such, the tenant is entitled to the benefits under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act.