KANDASWAMY PATHAR Vs. MEENAKSHI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above civil revision petition is directed against the order passed in R.C.A. No.28 of 1990 on the file of the Appellate Authority, Thanjavur, dated 22.7.1991 confirming the order passed in R.C.O.P. No.40 of 1984 on the file of the Rent Controller, Thanjavur, dated 20.9.1990.

(2.) HEARD both sides. The petitioner is the tenant. He was inducted on a monthly rent of Rs.50 by the husband of the first respondent. According to the tenant, even during the life time of the husband of the respondent, the monthly rent was collected from the tenant in lumpsum only and the rent was collected by the agent after making the entry in the katchat book maintained by the tenant, which is also marked as Ex.B-1 in the proceedings before the lower court. It is also the case of the petitioner that the practice of collecting lumpsum rent over a period was also followed by the respondent- landlord. It is the case of the petitioner that, there is no wilful default on his part in the delayed payment of rent and on the other hand, it is the practice adopted by the landlord to collect the rent only in a lump sum.

(3.) ACCORDING to the landlord, the petitioner was in arrears of rent from September, 1983 of January, 1984 (both inclusive), and the respondent caused a registered notice dated 31.1.1984 to be issued through here lawyer which was received by the respondent on 3.2.1994 as per the postal acknowledgement. The petitioner- tenant has sent the entire arrears along with a covering letter dated 6.4.1984 through his Counsel. Thus, even according to the respondent-landlord, the petitioner has cleared the rent upto the end of February, 1984 and therefore the allegation of the landlord the petitioner is chronic defaulter, is, in my opinion, without any justifiable or reasonable cause. The petitioner- tenant is not rendered himself liable to be evicted from the leasehold. The landlord has claimed a sum of Rs.50 only for March, 1984 by way of arrears of rent, i.e., on the date of filing of R.C.O.P. on 9.4.1994, a sum of Rs.50 being the arrears of rent for March, 1985 was alone due. It is not in dispute that the tenant has paid a sum of Rs.300 being the arrears of rent from September, 1983 to January, 1984 on receipt of notice dated 31.1.1984 and paid the said sum of Rs.300 on 6.4.1994 by Demand Draft. In this case, no agreement has been filed to show that the rent is payable on or before a particular date. Therefore, in the absence of any such agreement between the parties, the tenant is always entitled to pay the rent on the last date of the month next following. Thus, the petitioner tenant has time to pay the said sum of Rs.50 till the end of April, 1984. Therefore, as rightly contended by the counsel for the petitioner the rent control petition filed on 9.4.1984 is premature and therefore is liable to be dismissed. It is also as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 9.4.1984, namely, the date of filing of the petition, the respondent- landlord has no cause of action against the petitioner to file the eviction petition. The Supreme Court in its recent judgment in an identical case in Dakaya alias Dakaian v. Anjani, (1996)1 L.W. 25, held that the landlord has no cause of action for filing rent control petition, since the entire rent has been paid before the institution of the suit, namely, on 6.4.1984 itself. Therefore, both the lower courts have miscreably failed to appreciate the incidence of the payment of the enure amount without default before the institution of the rent control petition, which is filed on 9.4.1984. Therefore, the landlord has failed to prove the case of wilful default against the petitioner- tenant herein. Therefore, I allow the Civil Revision Petition and set aside the order of eviction passed by the authorities below.