KRISHNARAJ Vs. M. KARUNAKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful tenant in R.C.O.P. 1964 of 1981 on the file of the learned Rent Controller (Court of Small Causes, Madras,) and in the appeal in R.C.A. 545 of 1985 on the file of the appellate authority, Madras is the petitioner in C. R. P. 3453 of 1986 and the unsuccessful landlord in R.C.A. 975 of 1985 is the petitioner in C.R.P. 4234 of 1986.

(2.) The landlord filed the petition in R.C.O P. 1964 of 1983, for eviction of the tenant on the ground of wilful default in payment of the rent. The tenant resisted the application on the ground that the landlord had filed another eviction petition in R.C.O.P. 6074 of 1981 under Sec. 10 (3) (a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and an appeal was pending against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. Therefore be was under the bona fide impression that the rent payable by him would be adjusted from out of the advance paid by him to the landlord. According to him, the petitioner and his father-in-law are trying to evict him by book or crook.

(3.) The tenant filed the petition in R.C.O.P. 3278 of 1983, for restoration of amenities. He contended that the landlord had cut off the electricity connection thereby denying the basic amenities available to him, it was resisted by the landlord on the ground that because of non-payment of electricity consumption charges it was cut off even before he had purchased the property. According to him, at the time when he purchased the property, there was no electricity connection for the building. Hence, it is submitted that he was not responsible for the cutting off of the electricity connection which was done for non-payment of electricity consumption charges.