SHANTILAL M BHAYANI Vs. SHANTI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant has filed this revision against the order dated 24. 10. 1996 in R. C. A. No. 851 of 1996 on the file of the VII Judge, Small cause Court, Madras, confirming the order of the VI Judge, Small Cause Court, madras in H. R. C. No. 2977 of 1975, dated 30. 11. 1978.

(2.) THE respondent filed H. R. C. No. 2977 of 1975 for eviction of the petitioner from the building bearing door No. 10, Kasi Chetty Street , G. T. , Madras, on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent for the period from 1. 10. 1971 to 31. 7. 1972 and from 1. 6. 1974 to 30. 4. 1975.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that strictly speaking there was no default much less wilful default in payment of rent. What has happened in this case is that after sending the rent by the petitioner in his individual name Shantilal M. Bhayani, he chose to send the rents on behalf of a partnership firm, namely, M/s. Bhupendra Plastic industries. His sending rents are evidenced by the documents Exs. R-15 to R-42. He had sent rent under Ex. R-14. Subsequently, the previous landlord writes a letter under Ex. P-5 dated 17. 11. 1975 informing Mr. Shantilal M. Bhayani that he sold the property to Shanti Bai and the rent from 1. 11. 1975 should be paid to the said Shanti Bai directly. Ex. P-6 is the postal acknowledgment received by shantilal. Shantilal M. Bhayani also sent a reply under Ex. P-7. Even though the said letter head bears the name of M/s. Bhupendra Plastic Industries, Shantilal m. Bhayani, has alone sent it. Ex. P-7 shows that he has written the letter in his individual capacity. After having sent the rent upto a certain period, as is evidenced by Ex. R-14, the tenant Shantilal M. Bhayani has started sending rents on behalf of the firm. From the evidence arid EX. R-15, etc. which were refused. THE landlord has not chosen to accept the rent sent on behalf of the firm. Only when the rents have been sent on behalf of the firm the refusal has taken place. THE petitioner could have taken note of the refusal and continued to the rent in his individual capacity, but he has not done so. On the other hand, he has been persistently sending the rents in the name of the firm.