RAMALAKSHMI Vs. RASMARI SANTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlady who succeeded before the Rent Controller but lost before the appellate authority is the petitioner in this revision.

(2.) THE landlady filed R.C.O.P. No. 15 of 1989 on the file of the Additional District Munsif/ Rent Controller, Ambasamudram, for eviction of the tenant on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent from January, 1989. According to the landlady, in spite of the notice, the rent was not paid by the tenant and that the tenant has sent a reply containing false allegations. THE tenant contended that the property originally belonged to one Ulagammal and that the present landlady has purchased it by sale deed dated 27.4.1987. THE tenant further contended that she has paid ah advance of Rs.5,000 to Ulagammal and that at the time of sale, it was agreed that the tenant should continue to pay the original rent of Rs.50 and that the advance should only be refunded when the tenant vacates the property. THE learned Rent Controller allowed the petition and ordered eviction holding that the tenant has not proved the payment of rent and therefore, she has committed wilful default. THE tenant took the matter in appeal in A.C.No.23 of 1992 on the file of the Appellate Authority/ Subordinate Judge, Ambasamudram. THE learned Appellate Authority allowed the appeal. It also went into the question whether the rent is Rs.50 or Rs. 120. Hence the revision by the landlady.

(3.) MR.K.Chandrasekaran submitted that once the tenant has admitted that she was asked to pay the rent regularly and that her advance amount would be refunded at the time of vacating the premises, it is incumbent on her to prove the payment of rent and that the invocation of Sec. 114 of the Evidence Act is unwarranted.