R JAGANNATHA CHETTIAR Vs. SWARNAMBAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord is the petitioner in these civil revision petitions. THE premises bearing door No. 34, Ponnappa Mudali St., Madras 7 belongs to him. One Duraikannu, the husband of the respondent in these civil revision petitions, was originally a tenant in occupation of the premises and after his death, the respondent became a, tenant on a monthly rental of Rs.47.50, the tenancy being according to the English calendar month from the 1st to the end of every month. THE landlord has a daughter and she is living in a rented premises in Mannadi with her husband. Stating that she had been asked to vacate the premises in her occupation in a months time and claiming that the landlord or his daughter does not occupy any other building of their own and that the landlord bona fide required the premises in the occupation of the tenant for his daughters occupation, the landlord filed H.R.C. No. 3042 of 1980 before the Rent Controller (XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras under section 10(3)(a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960, as amended by Tamil Nadu Act XXIII of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) THE tenant, while accepting the tenancy disputed the bona fide requirement of the landlord for occupation by his daughter and further put forward the plea that the landlord was not living in a rented premises, but in his own house at Arasappa Mudali St., Madras 7, and that would disentitle him from maintaining the application for eviction.

(3.) IN the counter filed in that application, the tenant, while admitting the tenancy, stated that the rents had been regularly paid and that there are no arrears of rent. The wilful default attributed to her was also denied. IN addition, the tenant also stated that certain repairs to the premises had been effected by her at her expense and a portion of the rents had been spent towards that. The further case of the tenant was that property tax dues to the Corporation of Madras payable by the landlord remained unpaid in respect of which a distraint notice was issued, that the tenant was constrained to remit the taxes from the second half year of 1975 76 to the second half year of 1978 79 and that having regard to the payment of the property tax,, there was no question of any default in the payment of rents, much less wilful default.