K DHANABALAN Vs. PARVATHI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord is the revision petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Rent Control Appeal preferred by tenant, which was allowed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority setting aside the eviction of the tenant from the petition premises ordered by the Rent Controller on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent.

(2.) The landlord as petitioner filed the Rent Control Original Petition seeking eviction of the respondent / tenant from the petition non-residential premises bearing Door No. 30, Big Bazaar Street, Dindigul. In the petition, it is stated that the petition premises originally belonged to one Krishnan Chettiar, father of the petitioner, under whom the deceased first respondent became a tenant 40 years ago and after allotment of the petition premises to the petitioner in the family partition, the deceased first respondent also attorned tenancy. It is stated that the tenant paid rent only till December 1990 and thereafter, from January 1991 till September 1993, he committed default in payment of rent wilfully. The petitioner is running a financial company in a rental building. It is further stated that the two major sons of the petitioner require the building to run a business. The petitioner does not own any non-residential building in the Town except the petition building. It was informed that the respondent would vacate the building within two months and pay the arrears of rent but he has not vacated the petition premises. The deceased first respondent paid rent of Rs.400/- for the month of January 1993 on 05.02.993 and it was refused by the petitioner since the arrears of rent was not paid. The deceased first respondent caused notice on 05.02.1993 for deposit of rent and reply was sent by the petitioner on 09.02.1993. Then the petitioner issued a notice through his Advocate on 04.3.1993 claiming arrears of rent and for eviction of the petition premises for which the respondent gave a false reply. The respondent / tenant also filed H.R.C.O.P. No. 23 of 1993 for deposit of rent and the petition was opposed by filing counter. On these grounds, the petitioner / landlord sought for eviction of the respondent / tenant from the petition premises.

(3.) The respondent as tenant filed counter stating that the petitioner / landlord was not in the habit of issuing any receipt for the rent paid, that the respondent / tenant has been paying the rent regularly and the same is entered into the Account book maintained by him in the regular course of business and that the deceased first respondent paid rent up to December 1992 without fail and when he tendered the rent for the month of January 1993 on 05.0.1993, the petitioner refused to receive the same. So the deceased first respondent sent the rent for the month of January 1993 on 09.02.1993 to the petitioner by Money Order and that was also refused. A notice was sent on 19.02.1993 asking the petitioner / landlord to specify the Bank into which the rent amount can be deposited but no reply was sent by the petitioner to the said notice, which was received by him on 20.02.1993. However, the petitioner / landlord sent notice on 22.3.1993. The deceased first respondent also sent a reply on 06.04.1993. The rent sent for the months of January 1993 and February 1993 on 09.3.1993 to the petitioner by Money Order was also returned as refused. Therefore, the deceased first respondent filed H.R.C.O.P. No. 23 of 1993 for deposit of rent for the months of January 1993 to March 1993 and the rent due for the subsequent months and the said petition was allowed, after contest, on 27.10.1993, permitting the deceased first respondent to deposit the rent amount in Court. The landlord, by filing application, has taken the amount from Court deposit. In the said circumstances, the deceased first respondent has not committed default much less wilful default in payment of rent as claimed by the landlord. It is denied that the deceased first respondent committed wilful default in payment of rent from January 1991 to September 1993 and that the requirement of the petition premises sought on the ground of own use and occupation by the sons of the petitioner is without bona fide. On these grounds, the respondent / tenant sought for dismissal of the petition.