S KULANDAIVELU Vs. SOWRASHTRA VIPRA SABHA NAMAKKAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the tenant and the revision is directed against the eviction ordered by the learned Rent Controller and as confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent.

(2.) The respondent Sowrashtra Vipra Sabha, Namakkal, represented by its President and Secretary filed the Rent Control Original Petition on 17.12.1986 against the revision petitioner for eviction from the petition non-residential premises on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent from October, 1985 till the filing of the Rent Control Original Petition (11.12.1986) on a monthly rent of Rs.100/-. It is stated in the petition that H.R.C.O.P.No.17 of 1981 filed against the revision petitioner for eviction on the ground that the petition premises is required for demolition and reconstruction was allowed and the Rent Control Appeal was also dismissed and the matter is pending in Civil Revision Petition in this Court. It is also stated in the petition that towards the rent for the months of December, 1981 and January, 1982, Rs.200/- was paid on 20.2.1982; the rent for the months of February, 1982 to August, 1982 for 7 months, Rs.700/- was paid on 1.9.1982; the rent for the months of September, 1982 to July, 1 983 for 11 months, Rs.1,100/- was paid on 17.8.1983; the rent for the months of August, 1983 to October, 1984 for 15 months, Rs.1,500/- was paid on 19.11.1984 and lastly, the rent for the months of November, 1984 to November, 1985 for 13 months, Rs.1,300/- was paid on 9.12.1 995 and thereafter from December, 1985 till the date of filing of the Rent Control Original Petition i.e. 11.12.1986, the revision petitioner has not paid the rent and as such committed wilful default in payment of rent.

(3.) The Rent Control Original Petition was resisted by the revision petitoner/tenant in the counter admitting the tenancy from 13.12.197 4 and the quantum of rent at the rate of Rs.100/- per month and also the revision petition pending in this Court against the eviction order in H.R.C.O.P.No.17 of 1981 and confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. It is further stated in the counter that the revision petitioner was paying the rent regularly and since he refused to pay enhanced rent demanded by the respondent Sabha after filing of H.R.C.O.P.No.17 of 1981, the rent was paid as stated in the petition collectively without any deliberate intention and therefore, such default cannot be construed as wilful.