SUNDARAM STEEL CO Vs. S LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING failed before both the authorities below under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as -the Act -) the tenants have preferred this civil revision petition against the concurrent eviction order passed against them on the ground of wilful default in payment of arrears of rent for a period of six months from 1.11.1984 to 30.4.1985, in a sum of Rs.4,200 in all, that is at the rate of Rs.700 per month.

(2.) THE only argument made by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have given rental advance of Rs.7,000 to the respondent -landlady and if that is taken into account, there is no default at all. The receipt issued by the respondent - landlady for the abovesaid sum of Rs.7,000 is said to be with the Income Tax Recovery Office, Coimbatore -18 and in this connection, the petitioners have also filed in this C.R.P. C.M.P. No. 15892 of 1996 to summon the advance receipt from the said tax recovery office, so that they could prove the said advance. Further, in this regard the said learned counsel relied on K.Narasimha Rao v. T.M. Nasimuddin Ahmed, (1996)2 L.W. 169, which has held that where the landlord has tenant -s money in excess of one month -s rent, as advance, there is a legal obligation of the landlord to immediately refund the excess amount to the tenant and there is an enforceable right in the tenant to recover the said excess amount from the landlord or to have it adjusted for his benefit in case the landlord fails to discharge his obligation of refunding that amount. Therefore, the Supreme Court in that decision negatived the plea of wilful default under the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on Babu Syed v. Zubaida Bee, (1991)1 M.L.J. 412, in support of his contention that additional evidence could be permitted to be let in even in a revision under Sec.25 of the Act. No doubt in that decision after pointing out the decisions in Krishnamurthi v. Jagat Textiles, (1981)1 M.L.J. 384 and Arya Vaisya Samajam v. Murugesa Mudaliar, 1990 T.L.N.J. 82 (D.B.), it has been held that the provisions of C.P.C. are applicable to the revision petition filed before this Court under Sec.25 of the Act and that a petition filed under O.41, Rule 27, C.P.C, to receive documents as additional evidence in the revision petition filed under Sec.25 of the Act is maintainable.

(3.) REGARDING reception of any such additional evidence, Rule 16 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1974 only provide for the appellate authority taking such additional evidence, when the appeal before it is pending under Sec.23 of the Act. While thus the said Rules provide for receiption of additional evidence only at the time of the first appeal before the appellate authority, there is no provision either under the main enactment or under the Rules, for reception of any such additional evidence at the time of revision before this Court under Sec.25 of the Act. If really such additional evidence could be entertained in any such revision, it would have been specifically provided for, particularly when the abovesaid Rules specifically provides for such entertainment of additional evidence before the appellate authority. It is clear that the law has not not proved for any such entertainment of additional evidence at the time of revision under Sec.25 of the Act.