(1.) The defendant in O.S.No.5088 of 2008 on the file of the XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is the petitioner in the present revision. The respondent herein was the landlord and the revision petitioner herein was the tenant in respect of the premises bearing Door No.80, Bazaar Road, Saidapet, Chennai 15 and the contractual rent was Rs.600/- per month. Alleging willful default in payment of rent, the respondent herein filed an Eviction Petition under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 in R.C.O.P.No.406 of 2001. The Rent Controller allowed the R.C.O.P and directed eviction of the revision petitioner from the above said premises on the ground of his commission of willful default in payment of rent.
(2.) As against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, the tenant, namely the revision petitioner herein, preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.846 of 2002. Pending disposal of the said Rent Control appeal, the tenant, namely the revision petitioner herein chose to file a petition R.C.O.P.No.1265 of 2003 on the file of the Rent Controller under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for depositing monthly rents into Court. The said R.C.O.P filed by the tenant was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 03.01.2004. As against the said order, the tenant preferred an appeal in R.C.A.NO.133 of 2004 before the appellate authority. Both the appeals preferred by the tenant, namely R.C.A.No.846 of 2002 and R.C.A.No.133 of 2004 were dismissed by the Appellate Authority. Thereafter, the defendant preferred two revisions in C.R.P.Nos.1095 of 2006 and 1096 of 2006 on the file of this Court. This Court, after hearing, dismissed the Civil Revision Petitions, but granted 9 months time for vacating and handing over the vacant possession of the petition premises. On 12.04.2008, the tenant, namely the revision petitioner herein vacated and handed over vacant possession of the premises to the landlord, the respondent herein.
(3.) Thereafter, the respondent herein filed the above said suit for the recovery of arrears of rent due to him from the erstwhile tenant, namely the revision petitioner herein. It was contended therein that though the rent, pending CRP, came to be paid for the period from May 2006 till March 2008, the rent prior to May 2006 was not paid and that rent for the 12 days in the month of April 2008 was also not paid. The respondent herein prayed for a decree directing the revision petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.23,040/- as arrears of rent together with interest. The defendant in the suit, namely the present revision petitioner, remained ex parte and after ex parte trial, the trial Court decreed the suit directing the revision petitioner herein to pay Rs.23,040/- as arrears of rent together with an interest on the said amount at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of passing of the decree, namely from 07.07.2008 to 07.07.2009 and a further interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of passing of the decree. The revision petitioner, after suffering such an ex parte decree, did not take steps to get the ex parte decree set aside; nor did he file any appeal against the said decree of the trial Court. Meanwhile, the decree holder, the respondent herein, levied execution by filing E.P.No.2090 of 2010 in the above said original suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs.30,527.50 consisting of the principal portion of the decretal amount, interest portion of the decretal amount, cost allowed and the cost of the execution proceedings. Only after service of notice in the execution proceedings, the judgment debtor, namely the revision petitioner herein chose to enter appearance in the Execution Proceedings and resisted execution stating that the entire rent for the disputed period had already been deposited into Court. Besides filing such a counter, he had filed an application in E.A.No.1594 of 2011 under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure contending that the execution petition should be dismissed as there was no arrears of rent left unpaid by him.