S HERBERT Vs. C SHANMUGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two revisions have been filed by the tenant challenging the rent control proceedings. The landlord has preferred an eviction in R.C.O.P. No. 262 of 1997 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai on the ground of wilful default. The Court below has ordered eviction and challenging the same, C.R.P. No. 67 of 2006 has been filed. Pending the revision, the petitioner has obtained an order of stay and the stay was granted on condition that the petitioner shall pay the amount fixed by the Courts below. In view of the non-payment of the said amount execution proceedings have been initiated and an order of eviction has been ordered. Challenging the same, C.R.P. No. 216 of 2009 has been filed.

(2.) The eviction petition has been filed by the respondent herein being the power agent of the one Sooran. The said petition has been filed seeking eviction on the ground of wilful default. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 800/- per month as rent. Since the petitioner has not paid the rent from 04.07.1995 to 04.08.1997, the petition has been filed seeking eviction on the ground of wilful default. The petitioner has taken a stand that the rent is only Rs. 400/- per month and the said amount has been paid by him regularly. The petitioner has also contended that the power agent cannot represent the principal. However, the Court below accepted the contention of the respondent ordered eviction in R.C.O.P. No. 262 of 1997.

(3.) Challenging the same, an appeal in R.C.A. No. 6 of 2002 on the file of Principal Subordinate Court, Madurai. During the pendency of the said proceedings additional document was marked in Ex.P6 indicating the fact that the petitioner has agreed to vacate the premises within 15 days and also the petitioner is unable to pay the rent and arrears. Based upon the said document, the Appellate Court confirmed the order of the Rent Controller. Challenging the same, the revisions have been filed.