J SANTHANAKRISHNAN Vs. V K HARISHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/respondent/tenant has filed the Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 15. 02. 2006 in M. P. No. 857 of 2005 in R. C. A. No. 498 of 2004 passed by the learned Appellate Authority viz. , VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in directing the revision petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,82,000/- being the rental arrears from March 2002 to January 2006 at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- p. m. on or before 13. 03. 2006, failing which, all further proceedings in r. C. A. No. 498 of 2004 will be stopped and eviction will be ordered and further directing the matter to be called on 14. 03. 006.

(2.) THE respondent/appellant/landlord has filed Rent Control Original Petition in R. C. O. P. No. 2264 of 2002 on the file of the learned Rent Controller viz. , XV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai under Sections 10 (2) (i) and 10 (3) (a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act 18 of 1960 against the revision petitioner/tenant on the ground of willful default in payment of rent from 01. 01. 2002 to 31. 10. 2002 for a period of ten months amounting to Rs. 60,000/- and also on the ground of owners occupation, use and accommodation of the respondent/landlord and resultantly prayed for an order of eviction directing the revision petitioner to vacate and deliver the entire premises bearing Plot No. 210, AP 770, Z Block, Anna Nagar, Chennai 40 on a day that may be fixed in that behalf by the learned Rent Controller.

(3.) THE revision petitioner/tenant has resisted the proceedings in R. C. O. P. No. 2264 of 2002 by filing a detailed counter in and by which he has taken plea inter alia stating that he denies the averments of the respondent/landlord that he has in arrears of rent from November 2002 onwards and further mentioned that he has not paid only two months rent for the months of February and March 2003 and further he has also stated that he is ready and always willing to pay the rent from January 2003, but for the refusal on the part of the respondent/landlord, he has not paid and is also taking steps to deposit the same before the learned Rent Controller without prejudice to his contention and apart from the above he has taken a stand that the respondent/landlord is the owner of the premises No. 56, Kalavai Chetty Street, Chennai wherein now he resides and also he is owning other premises and therefore the need for the premises for the landlord's own use and accommodation is not bona fide and in short there is no wilful default on his part in payment of rent etc.