ABDUL MAJID Vs. J SEETHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is the revision petitioner. The revision is directed against the eviction order of the learned Rent Controller as confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. The eviction sought for on the grounds of own use and occupation and for additional accommodation was negatived by the learned Rent Controller against which no appeal was preferred by the landlords.

(2.) The petition residential premises has been occupied by the revision petitioner as tenant. The landlords filed the Rent Control Original Petition that the tenant has committed default in payment of rent from December, 1993 till the date of filing of the Rent Control Original Petition for 58 months wilfully at the rate of Rs.100/- per month, as per the finding made in the previous R.C.O.P.No.287 of 1994, though the actual rent was Rs.165/- per month. Therefore, on the ground of wilful default, the said petition was filed.

(3.) The petition was resisted in the counter denying that the tenant has committed default in payment of rent wilfully as claimed by the landlords. Further, it is stated that the rent sent by money orders regularly to the second respondent herein were refused and therefore, there is no default much-less wilful default in payment of rent as claimed for 58 months. Further, in the counter filed on 29.7.1999 it is also stated that at the very first hearing of the case i.e. on 13.1.1999, the entire arrears of rent and payable upto December, 1998 to the tune of Rs.6,100/- was deposited before the learned Rent Controller and therefore, such payment of rent by deposit of rent cannot be construed as wilful.