PRABHAKAR RAO Vs. PAPAYEE AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant in occupation of the premises bearing door No. 121 Bazar St, Ambattur, Madras 53, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. The respondent herein is the owner of that premises. Alleging that the premises had been let out to the petitioner on a monthly rental of Rs. 125 for residential purposes and that the tenancy was a monthly one according to English calendar, the respondent attributed wilful default in the payment of rents by the petitioner for a period of 10 months from 1-5-1976. Besides, the respondent stated that she required the premises in the occupation of the petitioner for the purpose of the education of her children. A notice terminating the tenancy was issued by the respondent on 7-11-1976, but as the petitioner did not surrender possession of the premises in his occupation in accordance with that, the respondent herein filed R.C.O.P. 72 of 1977 before the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Poonamallee, under S.10(2)(i) and S.10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act l8 of 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973. (hereinafter referred to as the Act) praying for an order of eviction against the petitioner.

(2.) In his first counter filed on 10-8-1977, the petitioner put forth the plea that the application for eviction had been filed in the name of a wrong person, as the father of the petitioner alone was the tenant and, therefore, no rents were due by the petitioner, as claimed by the respondent. The bona fides of the requirements of the respondent was also challenged. In the additional counter filed by the petitioner on 16-12-1981, the petitioner raised a dispute regarding the quantum of rent and the petitioner claimed that the rent agreed upon between his father and the respondent was Rs. 385 per month. It was further stated by the petitioner that he had said so in the written statement filed by him in O S. 1170 of 1978, Additional District Munsif's court, Poonamallee. The petitioner also contended that if the payments made into Court are taken into account at the rate of Rs. 85 per month, no amount would be due to the respondent. An objection was also raised by the petitioner that the application for eviction was not sustainable without impleading the other legal heirs of his deceased father. On these grounds, the petitioner prayed for the dismissal of the application for eviction. On 28-6-1982 by an endorsement made by the counsel for the respondent on the application for eviction, the requirement of the respondent under S.10(3)(a)(i) of the Act was given up.

(3.) Before the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Poonamallee, on behalf of the respondents, Exs. A.1 and A.2 were filed and the grandson of the respondent was examined as P.W. 1, while on behalf of the petitioner Exs. R.1 to R.3 were marked and the petitioner was examined as R.W. 1. On a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the learned Rent Controller found that the petitioner had committed wilful default in the payment of rents as claimed by the respondent and, therefore, an order of eviction should be passed against him under S.10(2)(i) of the Act. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner preferred an appeal in R.C. A.83 of 1982 before the appellate authority (Sub Court), Chengalpattu. On a reconsideration of the evidence, the appellate authority upheld the findings of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal confirming the order of eviction passed against the petitioner. It is the correctness of this order that is challenged in this civil revision petition.