M. VEDAPURI Vs. O.M. RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 23.08.2004 made in R.C.A. No. 7 of 1998 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalput, confirming the Order and Decretal Order, dated 13.10.1998 made in R.C.O.P. No. 2 of 1995 on the file of the Rent Controller/District Munsif, Chengalput.

(2.) THE revision petitioner herein is the tenant. The respondents herein have filed the Rent Control Original Petition under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(b), 10(2)(iii)(a), 10(3)(a)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, seeking an order of eviction of the revision petitioner from the petition mentioned premises.

(3.) ACCORDING to the revision petitioner/tenant, the finding of the courts below that there was wilful default in payment of rent is not sustainable. He has further stated that he paid rent up to November 1994, for December 1994, since the landlord refused to receive the rent, he filed R.C.O.P. No. 1 of 1995 to deposit the rents in court and that the rent amounts were paid to his advocate, but for how many months his advocate received the rent was not clear to him. It has been further stated that the rents were paid in lump sum of Rs. 3,000/- for the period July to September 1995 and another sum of Rs. 3,000/- for October to December 1995 by filing memo in the court and that the payment of lump sum amount would not be default. Since P.W.1 has admitted that he is retaining Rs. 5,000/- as advance and the monthly rent is only a sum of Rs. 1,000/-, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that even assuming that the rent was not paid for a period of three months, if there is an excess amount of Rs. 1,000/- retained by the landlord and in such circumstances, the said conduct of the tenant would not amount to wilful default.