SRINIVASALU Vs. M ZEENATHUNNISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is the revision petitioner before this Court challenging the order passed in M.P.No.313 of 2010 in R.C.A.No.89 of 2007 on the file of the learned VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in and by which the respondent was directed to deposit the arrears of rent for a period of 01.02.2005 to 31.10.2010 at the rate of Rs. 5,500/- per month totaling a sum of Rs. 3,79,5000 on or before 09.12.2010 to the credit of the Rent Control Appeal besides giving directions to deposit the future lease rentals till date of the disposal of the Rent Control Appeal.

(2.) The respondent/landlord had filed a petition through her Power Agent in R.C.O.P.No.1963 of 2004 on the file of the learned XV Small Causes Court, Chennai for evicting the petitioner herein for willfully defaulting in the payment of rents for the period of 01.05.2003 to 01.08.2004. The respondent would contend that the petitioner herein was a tenant in respect of a portion in the fourth floor of the premises belonging to the petitioner on a monthly rental of Rs. 5,500/- which is exclusive of the electricity consumption charges. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner was a chronic defaulter and there were arrears of rent for 16 months totalling a sum of Rs. 88,000/- and that despite notice sent on 29.02004, the petitioner/tenant had not come forward to vacate the premises.

(3.) The petitioner herein had countered this petition by contending that he had been inducted as a tenant in the year 2000 and that he has been regular in the payment of the monthly rents and that it was on account of his business crisis that he had committed a default and he would also contend that the landlord was in the habit of receiving the rents in lump sums. Therefore, he would contend that he is not a willful defaulter. Though, the petitioner/tenant had not questioned the locus of the Power Agent in filing the rent control petition, the Rent Controller had dismissed the rent control petition on the ground that since the power was not marked, the Court was unable to peruse the same and therefore the Court held that the rent control petition was not maintainable. Challenging this order the respondent/landlord had filed R.C.A.No.89 of 2007 in the month of June 2006 and in the appeal one of the grounds that was raised was that the Rent Controller had overlooked the power filed along with the Rent Control Petition on the basis of which the Rent Control Petition had been taken on file.