RAMAKRISHNA AND BROS Vs. T.P.N. MANICKAVALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful tenant before both the forums has preferred this revision challenging the order of eviction passed against him.

(2.) The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this revision can be briefly stated as follows. For the sake of convenience, we will adopt the array of parties before the Rent Controller, in this revision. The petitioner, who is the respondent in this revision, is the landlady, and she has filed the petition under Sections 10(2)(i) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. According to the petitioner, she purchased the petition mentioned property on 29.9.1975. The respondent has been occupying the premises for carrying on business on a monthly rent of Rs. 155. The rent is to be paid on the 5th of the next month. The respondent attorned the oral tenancy in favour of the petitioner. Since the respondent committed wilful default in payment of rent, the petition R.C. O.P. 84 of 1978 was filed and it was allowed. As against that, the respondent filed C.M.A. 23 of 1981 before the Appellate Authority. While the C.M.A. was pending the respondent failed to pay arrears of rent commencing from May 1982, to the end of June 1983, for a period of 13 months to the tune of Rs. 2015. Hence, he has committed wilful default in payment of rent. Further the petitioner requires the premises for demolition and reconstruction in order to argument her income. She obtained necessary licence and sanction from the Municipality. She also gave the necessary statutory undertaking that she would demolish the building within one month after getting vacant possession and commence construction within three months thereafter.

(3.) The said petition is resisted by the respondent, who is the revision petitioner herein. It is contended in the counter affidavit that the rent for the building is only Rs. 80. It is further stated that another sum of Rs. 75 is to be paid for amenities and furniture since the petitioner failed to provide necessary furniture and other amenities, she is entitled only to the rent for the building at Rs. 80. It is further stated that the rent is being paid once in three or six months. There was no agreement that the rent is to be paid on or before the 5th of the next month. He denied that he committed wilful default in payment of rent. According to him, the petitioner refused to receive the rent and hence he sent a sum of Rs. 2015 by way of demand draft and called upon her to specify the name of a Bank for remittance. But, the petitioner returned the same and also sent a reply with false allegations. Hence, he filed a petition under Sec. 8(5) of the said Act in R.C. O.P. 135 of 1983 and deposited the rent. As regards the requirement of the premises for demolition and reconstruction, it is contended that three walls of the building are common and hence, it cannot be demolished. The building is in a sound condition and does not require any demolition. The respondent has also effected repairs to the building spending a sum of Rs. 15,000 in 1965. The petitioner owns a number of houses and buildings at Tuticorin town, that she and her husband have been doing export business and getting sufficient income and that there was no necessity for her to augment her income. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.