G.MANOHAR Vs. BEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 05.07.2011, passed in R.C.A.No. 382 of 2009, by the learned VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, in confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 29.07.2009, passed in M.P.No. 403 of 2007 in R.C.O.P.No. 704 of 2005, by the learned XII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, under Sections 11(3) and 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, directing the petitioner herein to deposit the difference rental amount at the rate of Rs.1,000/ - p.m. from June 2004 to December 2006 and further direction to deposit the rental arrears for the period from January 2007 to till June 2009 at the rate of Rs.2,500/ - p.m. to the credit of RCOP, filing which, all further proceedings in the main RCOP will be stopped.

(2.) THE respondents herein are the petitioners before the learned Rent Controller and they filed eviction petition against the petitioner herein under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(3.) IT is also the case of the landlord that the petitioner herein had expressed his intention to purchase the property in the year 2003 and had also fixed up the sale consideration at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/ - for both shops and a sum of Rs.10,000/ - was paid as advance towards the purchase of the petition premises. However, it is stated by the landlord that after entering into the sale agreement, the petitioner herein could not complete the sale consideration by paying the sum of Rs.2,90,000/ - and he requested for execution of further sale agreement by granting some more time. Thus, it is the case of the landlord that another sale agreement dated 28.02.2004 was entered into between the parties by fixing the time for completion of the sale consideration on or before 30.06.2004. In spite of such sale agreement, the transaction could not be completed by the petitioner herein by paying the balance amount. It is also contended specifically by the landlord that in the sale agreement dated 28.02.2004, the tenant/petitioner herein has undertaken to pay the monthly rent till the registration is over.