RATHINAVEL CHETTY (DEAD) AND OTHERS Vs. GOVINDARAJULU CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Judgment of the Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge of Krishnagiri) in R. C. A. No. 6 of 1984, in which the learned Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal, confirming the order passed in R. C. O. P. No. 14 of 1983 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif, Dharmapuri).

(2.) Short facts are:

(3.) Mr. R. Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, would submit that the ground of requirement for own use and occupation no longer survives in view of the fact that the original revision petitioner died and his legal representatives are living elsewhere and owning their houses. Thus we are now confined to the other ground, namely the wilful default in payment of rent. Regarding this ground, Mr. B. Subramanian, would submit that the respondent relies upon Ex. B-1 rental agreement dated 20-2-1967, to rebut the ground urged, i.e., wilful default in payment of rent. The learned counsel further submits that the landlord does not accept the genuine of Ex. B. 1 that even assuming that ExB1 is accepted, in as much as it is for a period of one year and in as much as the lease deed is by virtue of a written document, it needs registration under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act and since it was not registered it cannot be looked into for any purpose much less for finding out the clause regarding the payment of rent and if Ex. B. 1 is excluded from the evidence, there is no evidence to show that rent was paid. In that situation, he would submit that the wilful default in payment of rent is to be accepted. As per the terms of Ex. B.1. the respondent had advanced a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 to the landlord and that amount carries interest at 12% per annum which comes to Rs. 100.00. The admitted rent is Rs. 100.00 as per the terms of Ex. B.1. Interest is to be adjusted towards the rent continuously and at the time when Rs. 10,000.00 is paid, the tenant has to vacate the premises and deliver possession. So if the terms of Ex. B1 has been looked into and if Ex. B.1 is accepted as a genuine document, then the question of wilful default will not arise at all. Mr. R. Subramanian, would submit that the terms of Ex. B. 1 should not be looked into, in as much as it cannot be admitted in evidence by virtue of Sec. 49 of the Registration Act. To consider the submissions made by Mr. R. Subramainan, Sec. 107 of Transfer of Property Act is extracted. It is as follows: