RAMACHANDRAN Vs. KRISHNARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petition is directed against the order of the Principal District Judge/Appellate Authority, Pondicherry, dated 12.3.1991 in M.A.No.47 of 1990 confirming the order of the District Munsif/Rent Controller, Pondicherry, dated 20.11.1990 in H.R.C.O.P.No.46 of 1990. THE tenant is the petitioner in this revision.

(2.) THE respondent/landlord filed an eviction petition on the file of the Rent Controller, Pondicherry, against the petitioner/tenant for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and his requirement of the premises for personal occupation under S.10(2)(1) and S.10(3)(a)(1) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969. As far as the requirement for personal occupation is concerned, the claim was rejected by the Rent Controller and there was no appeal by the landlord. As far as the claim made on the basis of wilful default is concerned, the landlord contended that the tenant failed to pay the rents for the months of January and February, 1990, and filed the eviction petition on 1 2. 3.1990. THE tenant filed his counter stating that right from the inception of the tenancy, he has been very regular in payment of rent and the rent for the months of January, February and March, 1990, was sent by money order on 12.4.1990 even before he received the summons in the H.R.C.O.P. THEre was also an agreement of sale in favour of the tenant and when the matter was being discussed, the landlord refused to collect the rent and hence the tenant sent the rent for the three months by money order. THE tenant's contention before the Rent Controller was that the default was not wilful and therefore, the landlord is not entitled to an order of eviction.

(3.) IT is argued on behalf of the tenant that he has been very regular in payment of rent right from the year 1983 and in fact, his advance of Rs.2, 000 paid to the landlord pursuant to the agreement of sale is with the landlord. The rent was not sent for January and February, 1990, as there was exchange of notices between the parties during that time in relation to the agreement of sale. Therefore, the non-payment of rent in the same month was not wilful. IT is also further stated that the tenant has paid the rent uptill date and there was no arrears of rent. IT is also pertinent to notice that the landlord did not prefer any appeal against the rejection of his claim for eviction on the ground of personal occupation.