SESHACHALA CHETTIAR Vs. DURAIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is the petitioner herein. The landlady filed a petition for eviction against the tenant on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and for owner -s occupation under Secs.10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973, (hereinafter referred to as -the Act -). According to the landlady the monthly rent payable by the tenant is Rs.50. The landlady submitted that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent from"1.4.1984 to 30.6.1985 for a period of fifteen months, amounting to Rs.750 per month. According to the landlady on 3.12.1984 the tenant paid a sum of Rs.250 by way of cheque and also paid another sum of Rs.250 by way of money orders. Thus the tenant has paid Rs.500 out of Rs.750. Therefore, the tenant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.250 by way of arrears of rent. The landlady also required the petition premises for the purpose of carrying on business by his retired husband. Therefore, the landlady filed petition for eviction under Sec.l0(2)(i) and Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.

(2.) THE Rent Controller found that there is no wilful default in payment of rent as alleged by the landlady. The Rent Controller also came to the conclusion that there is no bona fide on the part of the landlady in requiring the petition premises under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. The petition for eviction was dismissed on both these grounds. On appeal, however, the Rent Control Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent and, accordingly, ordered eviction on that ground. So far as the ground relating to Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act is concerned, the appellate authority confirmed the order passed by the Rent Controller. It is against that order, the present revision has been preferred by the tenant.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ landlady submitted as under: The rent due from 1.4.1984 to 30.6.1985 for a period of 15 months. The tenant paid by way of cheque a sum of Rs.250 on 3.12.1984. The tenant also paid a sum of Rs.250 by way of money orders on five occasions. It is not correct to state that a sum of Rs.250 was paid on 3.12.1984. Therefore, it was submitted that the tenant is in arrears of a sum of Rs.250. Inspite of the notice sent by the landlady, the tenant has failed and neglected to pay the arrears of rent, and therefore he is liable to be evicted from the petition premises.