S R SIVASUBRAMANIAM Vs. N RAJAGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners/landlords who succeeded before the Rent Controller and failed before the Appellate Authority have filed the above revision.

(2.) THE landlords filed the petition in R.C.O.P.No.24 of 1992 on the file of the Rent Controller/learned District Munsif, Erode for eviction against the respondent/tenant under Secs.10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. According to the landlords, the tenant failed to pay the rent for the period from December, 1991 to March, 1992, in spite of the notice issued under Ex.A-1, dated 18.3.1992 and so such default is nothing but wilful. With respect to owners" occupation, the landlords case was that they require the building for the purpose of the business of the sons of the first and sixth petitioners. THE tenant had contested the petition by filing counter. In the counter it is stated that before filing the petition,the sixth petitioner had been collecting the rent from the respondent/tenant and also handing over the receipt for the same. So, the respondent had been paying the rent as and when he came for receiving the rent. But for the past two years, none of the petitioners had turned up to receive the rent, and so the respondent had been sending the same through employees, to be paid at Sakthi Road Oil Mill belonging to the petitioners. On some occasions for non-presence of the petitioners, the amount was brought back and the tenant used to remit the said amount as and when the petitioners found available. With respect to the default period in question, it is sated that on receipt of registered notice dated 18.3.1992 the respondent went and remitted the arrears of rent for December, 1991 and January, 1992 and the respondent informed that he would remit the rent for February, 1992 after some time, which was readily accepted by the petitioners.

(3.) NOW it has to be decided whether Ex.A-1 is in accordance with the Explanation to Sec.10(2) (i) of the Act.