K SURESH BABU Vs. N GOVINDARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner / tenant as against the judgment, dated 07.10.2017 passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge), Ramanathapuram, whereby and whereunder the eviction order passed by the Court learned Rent Controller was confirmed.

(2.) The respondent / landlord is the owner of the premises and he let out the said premises to the petitioner for running his pawn broker business on 01.03.2007. The rent for the said premises was fixed at Rs.700/- and a sum of Rs.50,000/- was given by the petitioner / tenant as advance. According to the respondent / landlord, the petitioner / tenant has failed to pay rent from January 2010 onwards and without any valid license, he has been doing lottery business and gold business. Hence, the respondent / landlord had filed R.C.O.P.No.24 of 2013 seeking to evict the petitioner / tenant on the ground of (a) wilful default, (b) change in user, (c) use of premises for illegal purpose, (d) act of nuisance and (e) owner's occupation. According to the petitioner / tenant, the respondent has received rent till August, 2013 and thereafter, the respondent / landlord has purposefully refused to receive the rent. The Rent Controller, after hearing both sides, has allowed the eviction petition on the ground of wilful default and dismissed the same on all other grounds. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner / tenant has filed an appeal and the respondent / landlord has filed a cross appeal. The Rent Control Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal, but partly allowed the cross appeal, thereby confirmed the eviction order on the ground of owner's occupation also. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner / tenant has filed this civil revision petition.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / tenant has submitted that he has paid rent upto the month of August, 2013 and from the month of September 2013, the respondent / landlord refused to receive the rent and therefore, he had attempted to pay rent through Money Order on 19.11.201 However, the respondent / landlord had deliberately refused to receive the money order only with the mala fide intention to evict the petitioner from the petition mentioned premises. He would further submit that immediately after filing of the RCOP by the respondent / landlord, the petitioner / tenant has filed an application for depositing the rent and the same was allowed by the Rent Controller on 01.09.2014 and based on the said order, he has deposited the entire arrears of rent and thereafter, he has been depositing the rent into the Court without any default. More over, the respondent / landlord could have adjusted the arrears of rent against the advance. But, even after the request made by the petitioner / tenant, the respondent / landlord failed to deduct the rental arrears. Mere non-payment of rent for certain period cannot be stated as willful default. But, the Courts below have erroneously held that the tenant had failed to follow Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and thereby, committed willful default. Hence, the said ground is liable to be thrown out.