R KANNIAPPAN Vs. G SUNDARI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner as well as the learned Junior counsel appearing for the respondents are present and heard both of them.

(2.) C.R.P (NPD) No. 428 of 2009 has been directed against the Judgment in R.C.A. No. 685 of 2006 on the file of VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai which had arisen out of an order of eviction in R.C.O.P. No. 2321 of 2003 on the file of XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, which was filed under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to "Act") for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent for the period from March 2000 till the filing of the petition i.e., 6.11.2003 (44 months). C.R.P (NPD) No. 429 of 2009 has been directed against the Judgement passed in RCA No. 684 of 2006 on the file of VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai which had arisen out of an order passed in R.C.O.P. No. 425 of 2005 on the file of XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai which was filed under Section 10(2)(i) of the Act for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent from November 2003 till January 2005. In both R.C.O.Ps, the respondent has filed counter contending that he has not committed wilful default and that subsequent rents were deposited in his name in Tamil Nadu State Apex Cooperative Bank Limited, Chindadripet Branch in S.B. A/c No. 7324 (in his Savings Bank Account) .

(3.) It is well settled proposition of law that unless it is shown that the Courts below are perverse in arriving at a conclusion and that the Courts below have failed to look into the evidence produced before the Trial Court/Rent Controller, a revisional Court cannot interfere with a concurrent finding of the Courts below. Even though the revision petitioner would state that he had deposited the future rents in a bank, it is an admitted case of the revision petitioner that the future rents were deposited only in his name in the Savings Bank Account in Tamil Nadu State Apex Cooperative Bank Limited. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that there was no material placed before them to show that the tenant had deposited the future rents and also the rent due for the defaulted period mentioned in the respective petitions, without any default by the tenant. Under such circumstances, there is absolutely no material placed before this Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below in R.C.A. Nos. 685 of 2006 and 684 of 2006.