G CHANDRA Vs. MARIMUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlady is the revision petitioner. The revision is filed against the order of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority allowing the R.C.A.No.92 of 1997 filed by the tenant against the eviction ordered by the learned Rent Controller on the ground of own use and occupation in respect of the petition residential premises.

(2.) The landlady filed the Rent Control Original Petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent for 8 months from December, 1991 to July, 1992 at the rate of Rs.450/- per month and that the petition premises is required bona fide for own use and occupation with her family members and stating that she is residing in the rented building.

(3.) The Rent Control Original Petition was opposed by the respondent/tenant by filing counter, in which it is stated that even during lifetime of the landlady's father Rajagopal Naidu, he was owning other buildings in which he was residing in one of such buildings and the revision petitioner is also residing in her own building and therefore, the requirement of the petition premises for own use and occupation is without bona fide. It is further stated that the respondent has not committed default wilfully in payment of rent as claimed by the revision petitioner/landlady. Since rival claims were made for the rents by the legal heirs on the death of Rajagopal Naidu, the respondent/tenant was unable to ascertain as to whom the rent is to be paid and therefore, the respondent/tenant has not committed default much-less wilful default in payment of rent as claimed by the landlady and further even in the first hearing date of the Rent Control Original petition, entire arrears of rental amount have been deposited into Court.