A. EMBERUMANAR AND ANR. Vs. K. RAGHAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the owners of the house, ground and premises bearing door No.6, Sarojini Street, Mahalingapuram, Madras -34, having purchased the same on 16 -10 -1980. The respondent is a tenant in occupation of the ground floor of the building for non -residential purposes on a monthly rent of Rs. 425/ - payable on or before the 1st of the succeeding English calendar month. According to the case of the petitioners, after the property was purchased by them, they demanded the rent payable by the respondent for the period from 16 -10 -1980 onwards but that the respondent did not pay the rents every month but paid the rent on 17 -1 -1981 including the rent for the month of December, 1980 and that the respondent had committed wilful default in the payment of rent for 15 days in October, 1980 and for November and December,1980. It was the further case of the petitioners that they are carrying on business in a rented premises under the name and style of "Rasi Enterprises" at door No. 23 (old door No. 82), Armenian Street, Madras -1 and that the petitioners bona fide needed the premises in the occupation of the respondent for the purpose of their own business. On the aforesaid grounds, the petitioners filed HRC. No. 1859/81 before the Rent Controller (XI Judge, Court of Small Causes) Madras, under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') praying for an order of eviction.

(2.) THE respondent, while admitting the tenancy under the petitioners, contended that the previous owner used to collect the rents once in two or three months and that he had to stay in Bombay for a long period and on his return a sum of Rs. 2,337 -50 p. representing the rents for 15 days in October, 1980 and November and December, 1980 and a sum of Rs. 850/ - towards security deposit and Rs. 425/ -towards rental advance for one month were paid and that subsequently on 31 -1 -1981, the rent for January, 1981 was also paid and, therefore, there was no wilful default in the payment of rents for the period between 16 -10 -1980 and 31 -12 -1980. The bona fides of the need of the petitioners for the purpose of carrying on their own business in hardware was disputed by the respondent. The respondent also contended that the petitioner was only desirous of securing enhanced rent from the respondent and only with this view, the application for eviction had been filed.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that after the purchase of the property by the petitioners from the previous owner, the vendor of the petitioners had issued a notice under Ex.P -11 dated 24 -10 -1980 and thereafter the petitioners had also on several occasions demanded the payment of rent from the respondent, but that the respondent did not pay and such non -payment of rents after the issue of a notice and also after demands made, would only amount to wilful default in the payment of rents as to merit the passing of an order for eviction. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that the previous owner of the property used to come and collect the rent once in two or three months and that the respondent was lulled into a false sense of security by the attitude of the prior landlord, that even with reference to the petitioners the rents could be paid once in two or three months and that, therefore, the non -payment of the rents for 15 days in October, 1980 and November and December, 1980 would not amount to wilful default in the payment of rents. It was also the further contention of the learned Counsel that on 17 -1 -1981 the rents paid for the 15 days in October, 1980 and November and December, 1980 had been received by the petitioners without prejudice and that would suffice to cure the wilful default, if any, committed by the respondent in the matter of rents.