VASANTHA RAMAN Vs. THIRU SRI RAMAMOORTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the landlady in R.C.O. No. 2709 of 1988 in the Court of XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras. THE respondent is the tenant of the premises bearing door No. 16, Raja Street, Robertsonpet, Madras-28. THE rent agreed was Rs. 2,800/- per month. As per the revision petitioner, the tenancy commenced on 20th February, 1988, under the original of Ex. P. 7 lease-deed dated 18.2.1988. THE rent is payable by English Calendar month. THE respondent has failed to pay the rent for the period from first March, 1988 to 31st August, 1988. Besides, though the premises was let out only for residential purpose as per Ex. P. 7 agreement, the respondent is running his business in the name and style of ?Srikanth Construction Private Limited?, in the said premises. So she sought eviction under Section 10(2)(i) for wilful default and under Section 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 for using the building for the purposes other than that for which it w as leased.

(2.) THE respondent-tenant pleaded that the landlady had received a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from him by way of rental advance as per Ex. R. 1 receipt dated 18.2.1988. It was mutually agreed between the parties that out of the advance of Rs. 20,000/- the landlady would retain the statutorily permissible one month's advance of Rs. 2,800/- with her and adjust the balance of Rs. 17,200/- towards further rent payable by the tenant for the premises from 1.3.1988 onwards. Subsequently, the landlady has been adjusting the rent as per the agreement. THEre shall be no arrears in case the rent is so adjusted till August, 1988 and for the period commencing from 1.9.1988, the tenant has been making payments regularly. THE tenant further claimed that he was not running any business in the name of Srikanth Construction Private Limited in the petition mentioned premises.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that the respondent is a tenant of the petition mentioned premises under the revision petitioner landlady on a monthly rental of Rs. 2,800/- as per Ex. P. 7 agreement dated 18.2.1988. On the same day, under Ex. R. 1 receipt, the tenant had paid Rs. 20,000/- in favour of the landlady. The landlady as P.W. 1 has stated in the witness box that in case the rent due for the six months from March, 1988 to August, 1988 is adjusted towards the above said deposit of Rs. 20,000/- there will be no arrears for the said period. Thiru T. Viswanatha Rao, learned counsel for the respondent argues that as per the mandate provided in Section 7(2) of Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960 the landlady is not entitled to retain the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with her. She is duty bound to refund or adjust whatever amount remained with her in excess of one month's rent. The terms of Ex. P. 7 lease agreement regarding the payment of Rs. 20,000/- as advance are null and void, since they are in contravention of Section 7(2) of the Act. So the nature and character of the deposit assumes importance. We have also to consider whether any such deposit in excess of the month rent is violative of the provisions of Section 7(2) of the Act 18 of 1960, Whether the respondent/tenant has any right to have the rent due by him for the said six months period adjusted with the sum of Rs. 20,000/- remaining with the landlady is the controversy herein.