S. JAYAPRAKASH Vs. P. DURAISWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the judgment and decree dated 07.07.2015 made in R.C.A.No.623 of 2011 over ruling the order dated 21.02.2011 in R.C.O.P.No.1736 of 2009 on the file of the XVI Small Causes Court, Chennai.

(2.) The petitioner is tenant and respondent is landlord. The respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.1736 of 2009 on the file of the XVI Small Causes Court, Chennai, against the petitioner on the ground of wilful default, owner's occupation and ceased to occupy. According to the respondent, the petition premises was let out to the petitioner for non-residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/- by executing a lease agreement dated 31.05.1999. The petitioner paid an advance of Rs.1,00,000/-. The lease agreement dated 31.05.1999 was not renewed. The rent was subsequently enhanced to Rs.3,500/- per month and the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.3,500/- per month till April 2008. Subsequently, the petitioner has not paid the rent from May 2008 for a period of 15 months, amounting to Rs.52,500/- and has committed wilful default. The respondent's daughter has completed Computer Science Course and the respondent required the petition premises for his daughter's business. The petitioner initially agreed to vacate the petition premises and subsequently, he did not vacate and was not doing any business in the petition shop. The petitioner kept the shop closed for more than one year without paying the electricity charges and electricity service connection was disconnected. In the circumstances, the respondent has come out with R.C.O.P.No.1736 of 2009 for eviction of the petitioner from the petition premises.

(3.) The petitioner filed counter statement and contended that the respondent has refused to receive the rent sent by the petitioner. The petitioner sent the rent by money order. The respondent refused to receive the money order also. The petitioner has paid Rs.1,00,000/- as an advance and another sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the previous tenant Omega Electronics. The respondent agreed to return the same at the end of the tenancy period. The respondent himself disconnected the electricity supply connection to the petitioner's shop and refused to receive the rent. The respondent used rowdy elements to evict the petitioner from the portion under his occupation. The petitioner is carrying on business in the petition premises and he has not closed the shop. The requirement of the petition premises by the respondent for the business of his daughter is not bonafide and prayed for dismissal of the petition.