C RANGANATHAN Vs. M SURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these revision petitions can be disposed of by a common order as both of them arise out of an eviction petition filed under Sec.10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act).

(2.) THE petitioner is the owner of premises No.6 Sivaparakasa Mudaliar Road, T.Nagar, Madras-17, the southern portion in the ground floor of which is occupied by the respondent as a tenant. Originally, the monthly rent for the premises was Rs.100. As according to the landlord the rent paid by the tenant was low, he filed a petition under Sec.4 of the Rent Control Act, being H.R.C.No.1922 of of 1978. THE Rent Controller fixed the fair rent of the premises at Rs.236. Both the landlord and the tenant filed appeals against this order of the then Rent Controller. THE Appellate Authority allowed the appeal filed by the landlord and fixed the fair rent at Rs.267 by an order dated 20.4.1981. By the same order, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant. It is not in dispute that the fair rent fixed became effective from 19.7.1987 which was the date on which the petition under Sec.4 came to be filed.

(3.) THE tenant took the stand that the provision in Sec.10(2)(i) of the Rent Control Act was not available to the landlord in respect of non-payment of the amount found due as a result of the fixation of the fair rent. According to the tenant, the proper remedy for the landlord was to file a suit against the tenant to recover the amount found due. In fact, it is an admitted position that the landlord had already filed a suit for the additional rent payable to him and had also obtained a decree.