S SAHABUDEEN Vs. MUNIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by the tenant against the Order of eviction passed by the appellate authority, viz. VIII Judge, Court of Small causes, Madras . The appellate authority has reversed the Order of the Rent Controller, XI judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras , dismissing the petition for eviction filed by the respondent/landlady.

(2.) THE only ground of eviction is wilful default in payment of rent for the period from June, 1983 to September, 1984. THE agreed rent is Rs. 145 per mensum. It is not in dispute that the landlady had received a sum of Rs. 3,000 by way of advance to be returned at the time of vacating the premises after the expiration of the tenancy. THE tenant contended that he was paying rent regularly from the inception of the tenancy and also for the period of question. According to him, the landlady used to issue receipts every month and she did so upto May, 1983, but she stopped issuing receipts from June, 1983, though rent was being paid regularly, the landlady wanted the tenant to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 by way of advance in order to meet her commitments, as the tenant failed to pay the said sum, the landlady took advantage of the non-issue of rental receipts and filed the petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default, the rent was sent by Money Order in October, 1984, but the same was refused to be received by the landlady.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that the appellate authority has committed some factual errors and therefore his findings are unsustainable. It is submitted by him that the appellate authority has erroneously construed the plea of the tenant that the landlady never issued receipt for payment of rent. According to learned counsel, the only plea of the tenant was that though receipt was being issued upto June, 1983 it was not isssued only for the subsequent period in question. Secondly, according to learned counsel, the appellate authority is in error in thinking that the landlady had deposed that she refused to accept the Money Order, because the rent was sent only for October, 1984 and not for the prior period. There is no such version in the evidence of the landlady.