S.S. CHANDRAN Vs. R. LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2012 made in R.C.A.No.2 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruvarur (Rent Control Appellate Authority), confirming the fair and decretal order dated 27.07.2011 made in R.C.O.P.No.4 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvarur (Rent Controller).

(2.) The petitioner is tenant and respondent is landlady in R.C.O.P.No.4 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif court, Tiruvarur. The respondent filed the said R.C.O.P for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of wilful default, different user, act of waste and owners occupation. According to the respondent, the petition premises was let out to the petitioner in the year 1992 on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/-. Subsequently, in the year 2001, the monthly rent by mutual consent was enhanced to Rs. 700/- per month. The petitioner was irregular in payment of rent. After deducting all the amounts paid through money order sent by the petitioner, a sum of Rs. 15,300/- was due and payable by the petitioner up to the month of March 2006. The respondent issued a notice dated 18.09.2005 through his Advocate calling upon the petitioner to vacate and handover the vacant possession. The petitioner sent a reply dated 26.09.2005. According to the respondent, the petition premises is let out to the petitioner for residential purpose on a oral tenancy. The petitioner is not residing in the petition premises for the past 5 years prior to filing of the petition. The petitioner is storing decorative materials by which the petition premises is being damaged. The respondent wants to settle down at Thiruvarur and therefore, she requires the petition premises for her own use and occupation. Hence, the respondent filed the above R.C.O.P.

(3.) The petitioner filed counter statement and denied all the averments made in the petition. According to the petitioner, the tenancy is in writing and monthly rent is Rs. 450/- and not Rs. 500/- as claimed by the respondent. The petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 5000/- as advance to the respondent. The respondent and her daughter used to come and collect the rent. When they are unable to come and collect the rent, the petitioner used to send the rent by money order. The petitioner has paid rent regularly and he has not committed wilful default and there is no arrears of rent. According to the petitioner, when the petition premises was let out in the year 1992, the petitioner was residing in a portion and storing the decorative materials in another portion. By storing decorative materials in another portion, the petition premises is not damaged. The petitioner has not converted the residential building into non-residential building. The respondent's daughter and son have settled down at Chennai and respondent is residing with them at Chennai as all the facilities are available at Chennai. The respondent's intention is not to settle down in Thiruvarur. She asked the petitioner to purchase the property for a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/-. He refused the said offer. In order to sell the property for higher price, the respondent has filed the present R.C.O.P and prayed for dismissal of the petition.