R MURUGAN Vs. M O M ABUBUCKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition is preferred against the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority/principal Sub Judge Nagercoil, made in r. C. A. No. 5/2004, confirming the order of the Rent Controller/additional district Munsif, Nagercoil in R. C. O. P. No. 17/1999, ordering eviction under section 10 (2) (i) and 10 (3) (a) (iii) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent control) Act (in short, the Act ). The Tenant is the Revision Petitioner.

(2.) FOR convenience, the parties are referred to their original rank in Rent Control Petition.

(3.) ASSAILING the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/ Tenant has submitted that when the Petitioner/landlord was holding an advance for more than one month, the same could be adjusted towards the arrears of rent and that there was no wilful default. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the Revision petitioner Tenant has relied upon 1996 2 CTC 78. It is further submitted that even after the filing of the Eviction Petition, the Respondent/tenant continued to deposit the rent and there is no wilful default. Submitting that the petitioner/landlord owns other shops, the learned counsel for the Revision petitioner Tenant has further submitted that one Mehar Ali has vacated the premises, which the Petitioner has not occupied, which aspect was not properly appreciated by the Courts below. Submitting that the Petitioner/landlord owns other shops, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has contended that the Courts below erred in finding that there is bonafide requirement of the premises for own use and occupation for running the grocery shop.