E.K. SUBRAMANIAM Vs. MRS. SUNDARAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a flagrant case of 'wilful default' on the part of the tenant, for the record amply proves that the tenant (revision petitioner) did not pay the rent due to the landlord for nearly a year, and thereby accumulated a formidable arrear of over Rs. 1,000. Very naturally, the landlord sought the eviction of such a defaulting tenant; this is without prejudice to the contention urged by learned Counsel on behalf of the tenant (revision petitioner) that the case of his client was that the rent was only Rs. 120 per mensem and not Rs. 140 per mensem.

(2.) NEEDLESS to say, arrears of over Rs. 1,000 could never have accumulated, even if the tenant had paid the rent regularly at the rental admitted by him, Rs. 120 per mensem. The trouble was that the tenant did not pay any rent at all for a considerable period, which compelled the landlord to take proceedings for eviction. Finally, when the matter came up before the Court of the learned Rent Controller, he properly proceeded under Section 11 of Madras Act XVIII of 1960. Since the tenant had not paid the rent due, he declined to go on with the proceedings, unless the tenant forthwith did so. As there was no such payment, he made an order under Section 11(4) of the Act terminating further proceedings and " directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building."

(3.) APART from this point, there are absolutely no merits. The Revision Petition is therefore dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.