R RAJESWARI Vs. SWAMIDOSS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition has been brought forth by the tenant, who suffered an ex-parte order of eviction in the hands of the Rent controller in HRCOP No. 26 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, dindigul and filed therefrom, R. C. A. No. 22/2003 on the file of the Principal Sub judge, Dindigul, along with a petition for stay.

(2.) FROM the available materials, it could be well seen that the landlord, the respondent herein, filed an eviction petition under sec. 10 (2) (1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act alleging that there was lot of rental arrears by the tenant; that there was willful default on the part of the tenant, the petitioner herein, despite the notice issued before filing of the RCOP, and hence, she should be evicted.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner before this court is a tenant under the respondent landlord. The monthly rental is also not in dispute. IT is pertinent to point out that no case was set out in the counter filed by the tenant stating what was the reasons for the payment of the rental as alleged in the eviction petition, and further an ex-parte order was passed against her, which is challenged before the Rent Control Appellate authority, and the same is also now pending. Pending the same, an interlocutory application was filed, seeking the stay of the order of the Rent Controller, and there was a conditional order passed by the Rent Control Appellate authority that she should deposit the rental arrears within the stipulated time; but she has not done so. Having failed to deposit the arrears of rental before the lower appellate forum, she could not get the assistance of the Court in respect of stay. This Court is of the view that the Rent Control Appellate authority was perfectly correct in dismissing the application, since she has not obeyed the orders of the lower appellate forum.