BAHADURMUL SOWCAR Vs. M R LAKSHMANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I. C. R. P. NPD No. 2313/2005: The unsuccessful tenant before both the authorities below is the first revision petitioner. H. R. C. O. P. No. 16/1998 was filed by the respondents herein under Sec. 10 (2) (ii) (a) and 10 (2) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter called'the Act') on the grounds of subletting and wilful default against the revision petitioners for an order of eviction of the revision petitioner from the property bearing Door No. 1, asaliamman Koil Street, Tiruvannamalai Town. The respondents have stated in the eviction petition that the premises in question was occupied by the 1st revision petitioner 35 years ago on an yearly rent of Rs. 750/ -. The petition premises was originally belonged to one Murugappa Chettiar and Palaniyappa chettiar. The said Murugappa Chettiar died in the year 1992 and Palaniappa chettiar died in 1975. The respondents 1 to 5 herein are the sons of Murugappa chettiar and respondents 6 to 8 are the sons of Palaniappa Chettiar. Thus all the 8 persons joined together and filed the eviction petition. It is the case of the landlords that the first revision petitioner/tenant did not pay the rent from the year 1992 onwards and he has been squatting on the property without paying any rent for the past 5 years. In anticipation of filing eviction petition, the 1st revision petitioner suddenly sent a notice on14. 7. 1995 along with a Demand Draft for Rs. 2250/ -. In that notice dated 14. 7. 1995, the tenant has stated that he has already filed a petition in H. R. C. O. P. No. 2/1988 before the Rent Controller through his power of attorney to deposit the rent into court and the same was allowed. The tenant has also informed about the filing of H. R. C. O. P. No. 14/1990 and the said H. R. C. O. P. No. 14/1990 was dismissed on 29. 6. 1993 for not taking steps to bring the Legal Representatives of Murugappa chettiar. The tenant has further informed in the notice dated 14. 7. 95 that he deposited the rent into court till 1992. As he could not find out the Legal representatives of Murugappa Chettiar in spite of his best efforts, he could not pay the same from September 1992 to till date. According to the tenant, he came to know about the 3rd respondent herein only now through his lawyer and therefore he sent the notice dated 14. 7. 95 enclosing a demand draft for rs. 2,250/- being the rent for the period from September 1992 to August 1995. To this notice dated 14. 7. 95, the 3rd respondent herein sent a reply on 14. 12. 1995 stating that having kept quiet for the past 5 years without sending the rent, the tenant could not come forward to pay the rent and returned the demand draft sent by the tenant. Subsequently, the tenant/first petitioner herein sent a sum of Rs. 750/- along with the notice dated 9. 7. 1996 and it was again returned by the landlords in their notice dated 23. 9. 96. The respondents herein further alleged in the RCOP that the 1st petitioner sublet the property to the 2nd petitioner and hence the Revision Petitioners are liable to be evicted on the ground of wilful default and subletting.

(2.) THE 1st petitioner herein filed a counter in HRCOP no. 16/1998 and resisted the eviction proceedings. In his counter, the tenant stated that even though he came to know about the death of Murugappa Chettiar in the year 1993, only in 1995 he could obtain the particulars of Legal representatives of Murugappa Chettiar and immediately he sent a notice dated 14. 7. 95 enclosing a demand draft for Rs. 2,250/- being the rent for the period from September 1992 to August1995. Even when Murugappa Chettiar was alive, he filed HRCOP Nos. 2/1988 and 14/1990 and has been depositing the rent into court. When Murugappa Chettiar died, as he could not know the particulars of Legal representatives of Murugappa Chettiar, he could not take steps in HRCOP no. 14/1990 which was dismissed on 29. 8. 1993. THE moment he came to know about the 3rd respondent herein, he immediately sent the arrears of Rs. 2,250/- by demand draft along with notice dated 14. 7. 95. Even for the period September 1995 to August 1996 he sent a demand draft on 9. 7. 96 but it was returned without any justifiable reasons. THErefore he sent the amounts by Money Order on 22. 11. 96 and that was also refused. THErefore he filed HRCOP No,. 3/1996 for depositing the rent from September 1992 to August 1996 but the same was dismissed against which an appeal in RCA No. 7/1997 was filed and pending. THErefore, according to the tenant, he has not committed any default at all. Even assuming that he has committed default, it is not wilful default.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that both the authorities below have not rendered a proper finding on the basis of the evidence let in by the parties. He further submitted that the tenant could not continue to deposit the rent in HRCOP No. 2/1988 as the Power of Attorney who filed the petition on behalf of the tenant passed away. Similarly, the tenant could not deposit the rent in HRCOP No. 14/1990, as the same was dismissed for not taking steps to bring the legal heirs of deceased murugappa Chettiar, despite his best efforts to trace them. As soon as the tenants came to know about one of the legal heirs, he immediately sent a Demand draft for Rs. 2,250/- and another Demand Draft for Rs. 750/-, both of them were returned. Even the two Money Orders sent by the tenants were also returned and immediately he filed a petition in HRCOP No. 3/1996 for depositing the rent from 9/1992 to 8/1996. In such circumstances, if the totality of the situation is taken into consideration, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the tenant is not said to have committed wilful default.