DAMODARA KONAR Vs. JAHANGIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As against the concurrent findings of the Court below ordering eviction, this revision is filed by the tenant.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the revision petitioner is the tenant of the demised building under the respondents/landlords. The respondents filed eviction petition before the Rent Controller seeking eviction on the ground of wilful default. The Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition on the ground of wilful default, against which, the tenant filed rent control appeal, and the rent control appellate authority confirmed the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. As against that concurrent findings, the tenant has filed this revision.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Courts below ought to have seen that though Ex.A3-Notice issued by the landlords in the year 1991 stating that there was a dispute between the co-owners themselves in respect of the demised premises, thereafter they did not intimate the tenant to whom he has to pay the rent. However, after keeping quiet for more than 10 years and allowing the petitioner to pay the rent and receive the same by the 3rd respondent in RCOP, the landlords filed eviction petition in 2002 on the ground of wilful default. According to the petitioner, there is no bonafide on the part of the landlords to seek eviction on the ground of wilful default. It is further contended that the Courts below have failed to consider Ex.B1 to B8 which are the rental receipts issued by the 3rd respondent in RCOP in respect of the demised premises and therefore, there is no default in payment of rent on the part of the petitioner/tenant much less wilful default. Learned counsel would bring to the knowledge of this Court that a partition suit among the persons claiming to be the co-owners of the demised building is pending before the III Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli, in O.S.No.109/2011 and therefore, the payment of rent to the 3rd respondent in RCOP will not amount to wilful default for ordering eviction on that ground. In support of his contention, learned counsel would rely on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.A.Ramesh and others vs. Susheela Bai (Smt) and others reported in (1998) 3 SCC 58, and would state that if the Controller is satisfied that the tenant's default to pay or tender the rent was not wilful, he may give the tenant a reasonable time, not exceeding fifteen days, to pay or tender the rent due by him to the landlord up to the date of such payment or tender and on such payment or tender, the application shall be rejected. Thus, he prayed to allow this revision petition.