P KANNAIAH Vs. V R CHINNARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE concurrent finding of the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No.187 of 2003 and the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No.61 of 2006 under Section 19(2)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings( Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") for an order of eviction is under challenge before this Court under this Revision.

(2.) THE facts in brief in the Petition filed by the landlord in R.C.O.P. No.187 of 2003 before the learned Rent Controller runs as follows:THE petitioner is the owner of the premises bearing door No.245 and Door No.248. Coimbatore. THE respondent became a tenant under one Mr. Rajagopal previously. THE petitioner had purchased the petition schedule property from Rajagopal as per the registered sale deed dated 25.11.1985. THE tenancy was attorned in favour of the petitioner and the respondent was paying the rents to the petitioner after his purchase. THE respondent is in occupation of the premises bearing door No.248 and he is carrying on Hotel Business thereon. THE rear portion bearing door No.245 is being used by the respondent for his residential purpose. After the purchase of the petition schedule premises, the respondent was paying a sum of Rs.500/- towards rent for door No.245 and subsequently it has been increased from time to time and the present rent payable is Rs.2,500/- As far as door No.248 is concerned, the rent was originally fixed as Rs.450/- per month and it has been increased from time to time and the present rent is Rs.1,500/- per month. Thus the total rent payable by the respondent to door Nos.245 and 248 comes to Rs.4,000/- per month. At the time of inception of tenancy, the respondent has paid Rs.1,000/- towards advance. Both door Nos.245 and 248 are contiguous in nature. THE petitioner's son Boopathy is running a Bakery and Hotel under the name and style of "Boopathy Bakery and Hotel" in the rented premises belonging to Mr. Elango at Aerodrome Road, Singanallur, Coimbatore. He is paying Rs.3,000/- per month towards rent. His landlord Mr. Elango had demanded him to vacate and hand over vacant possession. THE petitioner, therefore, requires the Petition schedule premises for the own use and occupation of his son Boopathy. THE requirement of the petitioner is a bona fide one. THE rent payable from February 2003 has not been paid. THE respondent has sent two money orders of Rs.1,500/- each alleging that the rent is Rs.1500/- per month. In spite of repeated demands, the respondent has wilfully and deliberately failed to pay the rent. THE default committed by the respondent is wilful and therefore he is liable to be evicted from the petition premises. THE respondent had filed O.S. No.747 of 2003 on the file of Court of District Munsif, falsely contending that the petitioner is attempting to interfere with his possession. THE said suit is still pending. THE petitioner had sent a legal notice dated 30.6.2003 calling upon the respondent to vacate and surrender the possession of the premises to enable his son to do his business. THE respondent received the said notice and gave reply notice dated 7.7.2003 containing false and frivolous allegations. Hence the Petition for eviction.

(3.) NOW the point for consideration in this Revision Petition is what is the rent for the Petition schedule premises? and whether the revision petitioner/tenant had committed any wilful default in payment of rent ?.