(1.) THE petitioner / tenant aggrieved over the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority has come forward with this Civil Revision Petition.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: THE petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlady. Earlier, the respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.773 of 1993 against the petitioner and the other tenants to evict him and for demolition and reconstruction. But, he was not successful in the said R.C.O.P. Since the petitioner / tenant committed default in payment of rents, he filed R.C.O.P.No.949 of 2004 to evict the tenant on the ground of wilful default. Even after receipt of summons, on the first hearing, the petitioner remained absent and he was set exparte. He filed an application M.P.No.788 of 2004 to set aside the exparte order. Meanwhile, the respondent filed M.P.No.875 of 2004 under Section 11 (3) of the Act and the Rent Controller passed a conditional order directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.19,600/- towards rental arrears for the period from October 2003 to November 2004. THE petitioner complied with the condition. After trial, the petitioner before the Rent Controller contended that he was sick and therefore count not attend the first hearing and since he was out of station for treatment, he was not able to pay the rent and therefore according to him the default of payment of rent, though admitted was not willful. However, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the petitioner committed willful default in payment of rent and therefore passed an order to evict the petitioner from the premises. Aggrieved over the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.502 of 2005 before the appellate authority, who by an order dated 15.03.2006 confirmed the order of Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved over the same, this revision has been filed.
(3.) IT is also stated in the Appellate Authorities order that even during the pendency of the appeal, he was liable to pay rent from July 2005 to February 2006. These findings would show that the petitioner has gone in default of payment of rent.