S. PRABHAKARAN Vs. S. RANGANAYAKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 26-3-2004 made in R.C.A. No. 71 of 2003 by the Court of Rent Control Appellate Authority (I Additional Subordinate Judge), Coimbatore, thereby confirming the fair and decretal order dated 29-4-2003 made in R.C.O.P. No. 256 of 2002 by the Court of Rent Controller (I Additional District Munsif), Coimbatore.

(2.) TRACING the history of the case, what comes to be known is that the respondent herein has filed R.C.O.P. No. 256 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Rent Controller (I Additional District Munsif), Coimbatore under Section 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking for an order of eviction of the petitioner herein and to hand over possession of the petition mentioned property to the respondent herein on ground of wilful default in payment of rent, own occupation and for costs; that the learned Rent Controller (I Additional District Munsif), Coimbatore on the basis of the above pleadings by parties and upon hearing the learned counsel for both would ultimately allow the above R.C.O.P. with cost, further granting one month's time for eviction, on ground that the petitioner herein has failed to pay the arrears of rent on or before 28-4-2004 as directed by this Court, and has also failed to comply with the conditional order of this Court dated 7-3-2002. Aggrieved against the said fair and decretal order the petitioner herein has preferred R.C.A. No. 71 of 2003 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, (Additional Subordinate Judge), Coimbatore. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in consideration of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both would ultimately dismiss the R.C.A., thereby confirming the fair and decretal order passed by the Rent Controller (I Additional District Munsif), Coimbatore, further granting two months time for eviction, testifying the validity of which, the petitioner has come forward to file this Civil Revision Petition on grounds such as that the Courts below ought to have considered that the averments made in the petition filed by the landlady are misconceived and the reason for wilful default has not been substantially proved; that the learned Rent Controller failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner had filed R.C.O.P. No. 86 of 2003, which is pending on the file of the learned Rent Controller (I Additional District Munsif), Coimbatore and the petitioner is regularly depositing the rent into the Court and the admitted rent as per written, lease deed dated 9-12-1999 between the petitioner and respondent is only Rs. 1,500/- per month, that the learned Rent Controller has not perused any document filed by the petitioner and had passed an order summarily without assigning any reason and the same is a non-speaking order; that the learned Rent Controller failed to note that the above R.C.O.P. No. 256 of 2001 has been filed without giving two months time as statutory period for complying wilful default as per the Supreme Court Judgments since the notice issued by the respondent was on 20-11-2002 the petition was filed on 20-12-2002 and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be held as a wilful defaulter; that the learned Rent Controller has failed to apply his mind to the above fact and on this ground alone the above R.C.O.P. has to be dismissed. On such grounds, the petitioner would pray for the relief extracted supra.

(3.) THE second judgment cited is one reported from S. Sundaram v. V.R. Pattibhiraman, 1985(1) RCR(Rent) 422 (SC) : AIR 1985 SC 582, wherein, it is held as follows :