SUNDARAM Vs. JOTHI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant, against whom the Appellate Authority has passed an order for eviction, on the application, of the landlady, the respondent herein, under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), is the petitioner herein.

(2.) The respondent is the owner of the premises bearing No.14, Old Slaughter House Street, Choolai, Madras-600 007, and the petitioner herein is a tenant therein on a monthly rent of Rs.30, the tenancy being reckoned according to the English calendar month. According to the case of the respondent, she is living in a rented premises and bona fide requires the house in the occupation of the petitioner for her own use and occupation. It was the further case of the respondent that three other tenants, who were in occupation of different portions of the premises, had already vacated realizing the bona fides of the requirement of the respondent and though the petitioner was approached by the respondent with a request that the petitioner should deliver vacant possession, the petitioner merely promised to do so as soon as he was able to secure suitable accommodation, but did not vacate as promised, for more than a year, with the result that the other portions which had fallen vacant had also been kept vacant, as till such time the petitioner vacates from the building in his occupation, the entire building cannot be occupied by the respondent for her use. Stating that she was not occupying any residential building of her own in Madras City and that she required the premises in the occupation of the petitioner for her own use and occupation, and further charging the petitioner with having committed willful default in payment of rents for the months of June and July, 1982, the respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.4025 of 1982, praying for an order of eviction against the petitioner.

(3.) In his counter, while admitting the tenancy in his favour as well as its terms, the petitioner denied that the respondent was residing in a rented premises. The petitioner put forth the plea that though three other tenants had already vacated, the respondent had not occupied those portions, but had left the same idle without use and that established that the respondent was only anxious about evicting the petitioner with a view to let out the premises to others and, therefore, her requirement is not bona fide. Referring to the wilful default in the payment of rents attributed to the petitioner, he stated that the rent for the month of July, 1982 was paid on 8th August, 1982, and received by the husband of the respondent, who then warned the petitioner that he should vacate by the end of September, 1982 and that a similar warning was also given a week hence and this necessitated the writing of a letter by the petitioner on 11th August, 1982, to the effect that if the husband of the respondent did not turn up on or before 15th September, 1982, for collecting the rent for August, 1982, he would be obliged to send the rent for that month by money-order. Despite this, according to the petitioner, the husband of the respondent did not turn up to collect the rent and in accordance with the letter, the rent for August, 1982 was sent by money-order on 16th September, 1982, which, however, was refused by the respondent. Thus, according to the petitioner the rents upto July, 1982 had been paid by him and he also expressed his readiness and willingness to tender the rents for August and September, 1982 and stated there was no default, much less willful default in the payment of rents for the period mentioned in the application for eviction.