P JANAKIRAMAN Vs. N UMADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord is the petitioner herein. THE landlord filed R.C.O.P. No. 1530 of 1986 on the file of XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, for eviction against the tenants under Secs.l0(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(i) and 10(2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act, on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent for owner's occupation and for acts of waste. According to the landlord, he is the owner of the petitioner premises. THE mother of the present tenants Tmt. Rathinam was the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.220. THE landlord filed H.R.C. No.737 of 1976 under Sec.4 of the Act for determining the fair rent. THE rent controller determined the fair rent at Rs.738 per month. THE tenant filed an appeal H.R.A. No.412 of 1982 as against the order passed in H.R.C. No.737 of 1976. In the appeal, the Rent Control Appellate Authority determined the fair rent at Rs.691 per month payable from the date of filing the petition. As against the said order, the tenant filed C.R.P.Nos. 3843 and 3844 of 1982. When these revisions were pending in the High Court, Tmt. Rathinam died. C.M.P. No. 12437 of 1982 and C.M.P. No.12214 of 1985 were filed to excuse the delay in filing the petition and to bring the legal representatives on record. THEse petitions were dismissed. THE revisions were abated, since the legal representatives were brought on record. Hence, the fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority at Rs.691 per month stands confirmed. THE landlord filed O.S. No.5380 of 1985 for collecting the arrears of rent and for possession. THE tenant also filed a suit O.S. No.4729 of 1985 for direction to the landlord not to collect the rent at the rate of Rs.691 p.m. In the said suit I.A. No. 1155 of 1985 was filed by the tenant for permission to deposit the rent at the . rate of Rs.220 per month. This application was allowed by the trial court. Against the said order C.R.P. No.4391 of 1985 was filed. THE revision was allowed and the order passed in I.A.. No. 1155 of 1985 was set aside. THErefore, according to the landlord the tenants committed wilful default in payment of rent at the rate of Rs.691 p.m. from 1.4.1985 to March, 1986. Hence, the tenant is liable to be evicted under Sec. 10(2)(i) of the Act.

(2.) ACCORDING to the landlord, he is having a number of people in his family, and therefore the present premises in which he is in occupation is not sufficient for his convenient enjoyment. Therefore he required the portion under the occupation of the tenants bona fide of the use of his sons. It is also stated that the tenants committed acts of waste, thereby rendering themselves liable to be evicted on that ground also.

(3.) ON considering the facts arising in this case. The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent for the petition period. Accordingly eviction was ordered. Insofar as the petition for eviction filed on the grounds of acts of waste and owner's occupation is concerned, the petition was dismissed. ON appeal the Rent Control Appellate Authority on appraising the facts, same to the conclusion that the tenants did not commit wilful default in payment of rent. Accordingly the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed the order passed by the Rent Controller under Sec. 10(2)(i) of the Act. Thus the petition for eviction filed under Sec.l0(2)(i) of the Act was dismissed. Insofar as the order passed by the Rent Controller on the grounds of acts of waste and owner's occupation is concerned, the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirmed the order passed by the Rent Controller in dismissing the petition filed under Secs.l0(3)(a)(i) and 10(2)(iii)of the Act.