PSUA NOWSATH ALI AND OTHER Vs. RASEED MYDEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners are the landlords in R.C.O.P. No. 31 of 2010, on the file of the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Dindigul. The respondent herein is the tenant in respect of the property owned by the revision petitioners.

(2.) The revision petitioners filed R.C.O.P. No. 31 of 2010 before the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Dindigul, for evicting the respondent on the ground of wilful default and for their own occupation. It is not in dispute that the premises was let out to the respondent for carrying on business and that the present rent is Rs. 2,750/-. It is the case of the revision petitioners that the premises was owned by the father of the revision petitioners and the respondent was carrying on business from January'1992, as tenant under the revision petitioners' father. Since the father of the revision petitioners died, the revision petitioners and their mother are taking care of the premises. It is the further case of the revision petitioners that the respondent, though agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 2,750/- from 2010, had committed default from February'2010 for a period of 22 months. It is further stated that the demised premises is required for the revision petitioners for doing finance business by advancing loan for two wheelers under hire purchase agreement. It is also admitted that the respondent filed a suit in O.S. No. 229 of 2010 before the District Munsif Court, Dindigul, for restraining the revision petitioners from interfering with the peaceful possession of the respondent otherwise than due process of law.

(3.) The respondent herein filed a detailed counter disputing the default in payment of rent. It is the case of the respondent that he has been paying rent regularly and obtained receipt for payment of monthly rent on regular basis. The respondent further contended that the mother of the revision petitioners was receiving rent and issuing receipts. The respondent further contended that the mother of the revision petitioners refused to receive the rent when it was tendered by the respondent in the first week of April'2010, i.e., the rent payable for the month of March'2010. Since the mother of the revision petitioners refused to receive the rent, the respondent stated that he sent the rent on 06.04.2010, by money order and that the same was also refused by the mother of the revision petitioners. The respondent therefore, stated that he was constrained to send the rent by way of demand draft by registered post. Though demand draft was accepted, it is further stated that no receipt was given. It is further stated by the respondent that subsequently he sent a demand draft dated 06.05.2010 by registered post and the same was refused. It was, in the stated circumstances, the respondent contended that he was constrained to file a petition in R.C.O.P. No. 17 of 2010 before the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Dindigul, for depositing the rent in Court and the said petition was allowed on 02.02.2011. During the pendency of R.C.O.P. No. 17 of 2010, it is contended that the tenant was depositing the rent without any default and that the rent was deposited continuously as permitted by the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No. 17 of 2010. The respondent, therefore, contended that there was no wilful default.