M B KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. M R PICHAI DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 09. 07. 1997 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal subordinate Judge) Madurai in R. C. A. No. 32 of 1993, reversing the order dated 21. 01. 1993 of the Rent Controller (Additional District Munsif), Madurai Town in r. C. O. P. No. 159 of 1986, dismissing the Eviction Petition filed by the Landlord. The Plaintiff / Landlord is the Revision Petitioner.

(2.) THE demised premises relates to a Shop in Kuyavar palayam, Madurai. THE premises originally belonged to Seethalakshmi, under whom the Respondent had become a Tenant on a daily rent of Rs. 6/- totally Rs. 180/-per month for conducting Coffee Stall under the name and style of "sumathi coffee Nilayam". THE Tenancy is Oral and as per the English Calendar month. THE Respondent/tenant was a chronic defaulter in payment of rent. THE petitioner Son in law of Seethalakshmi is the Owner of the Premises. THE respondent/tenant has not been paying the rent regularly and the Petitioner has requested him to vacate the premises and hand over vacant possession. In July 1985, there was a Panchayat between the parties in the presence of one Jothilal in connection with the vacating the leased premises. At that time, the respondent agreed to vacate the premises within six months and in the meanwhile, from July 1985, he agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 250/- per mensum. But, the Respondent had again committed default in payment of rent. THE petitioner/landlord has sent Ex. A. 1-Notice dated 24. 01. 1986 stating the factum of Wilful Default and the delay in vacating the premises. THE Respondent received the Notice on 29. 01. 1986 and has paid only a sum of Rs. 1508. 70 as against the total arrears of Rs. 1928. 70. THE Respondent has not paid the balance of Rs. 420/ -. THEreafter, the Respondent again committed default in paying the rent from January 1986 to March 1986. Even after issuance of ex. A. 5-Notice dated 05. 04. 1986, the Respondent/tenant has not paid the amount. THE premises is also required for conducting Idli business by the Petitioner. Hence, the Petition was filed under Sec. 10 (2) (i) and Sec. 10 (3) (c) of Tamil Nadu buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as "the act" ).

(3.) COUNTERING the arguments, by placing reliance upon exs. A. 4 and A. 6, learned counsel for the Respondent/tenant has submitted that the arrears of rent had been paid under Exs. A. 4 and A. 6 and the Appellate authority had rightly arrived at the conclusion that there is no Wilful Default in payment of rent and that the dismissal of the Eviction Petition does not suffer from any unreasonableness warranting interference. It is also contended that the Petitioner / Landlord has not established the bonafide requirement of the premises as Additional Accommodation for expanding the Idly business.