LAWS(MAD)-1996-1-44

PAPPU REDDIAR Vs. T K MURUGESA UDAYAR

Decided On January 18, 1996
PAPPU REDDIAR Appellant
V/S
T.K.MURUGESA UDAYAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision is filed by the landlord under the Rent Control Act. He filed H.R.C.O.P. No.3 of 1984, on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Turaiyur, for eviction of the respondent herein, on the ground that he committed willful default in payment of rent, and also on the ground that the building is required for his own occupation.

(2.) It is averred in the petition that rent is payable at the rate of Rs. 75/- per mensem on or before the 5th of every succeeding month according to English calendar. According to the landlord, in spite of the contract between the parties, the tenant failed to pay rent from 1-4-1984 wilfully and wantonly. It is further averred in the petition that the petitioner has no other residential premises than the petition mentioned building, and that the same is required for his personal convenience.

(3.) In the counter statement filed by the respondent, it is stated that he began to occupy the building from 1974 on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-. Later, in the year 1975, a fresh agreement came into existence and as per that, respondent was liable to pay Rs. 75/- per month as rent, on or before the 5th of every succeeding English month. The respondent was a contractual tenant till 30-6-1979 and thereafter became a statutory tenant, and he is entitled to the benefits of the Act. The respondent denies the allegation that he wilfully failed to pay rent from 1-4-1984 in spite of repeated demands by petitioner. According to him, though he was ready to pay rent every month, the petitioner used to receive the rent in lump sum right from the beginning of the tenancy from the year 1974, as can be seen from the receipts issued by the petitioner's agent. According to the respondent, the petitioner's agent wanted the respondent to pay Rs. 100/- as rent from April, 1984, and for this also, the respondent agreed. But, for reasons best known to them, they refused to receive the rent from the respondent. Therefore, the respondent sent the rent through money order, which the petitioner refused to receive. According to the respondent, there was no wilful default. Regarding personal occupation, it is said that the, petitioner is a permanent resident of Perumalpalayam Village, and that he has no intention to reside at Turaiyur. The respondent would say that the alleged requirement is only a ruse to evict him from the demised premises.