G.K. JOSE AND ORS. Vs. RAMATHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these four revision petitions arise out of a common judgment rendered by the appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 dismissing the appeals filed by the four petitioners against the orders of eviction passed against at them by the Rent Controller. All the four petitioners herein are tenants in the various portions of the same building bearing different door numbers (Door Nos. 22/315, 313, 314 and 315). As regards all the petitioners except the petitioner in C.R.P. 136/79 the two grounds urged for the purpose of eviction are (1) wilful default in payment of rent; and (2) bona fide requirement of the premises for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction As regards the petitioner in C.R.P No. 136/79 an additional ground of eviction has been urged by the respondent -landlady. The Rent Controller by a common judgment in all the four petitions filed against the petitioners herein held that the ground of wilful default in payment of arrears of rent had been established, except in respect of the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 138 of 1079. As regards the ground of bona fide requirement of the premises for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction the Rent Controller held that the requirement is bona fide and, therefore, she is entitled to an order of eviction on that ground alone. In respect of the sob -letting alleged against the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 136 of 1979, the Rent Controller held that the subletting has not been proved. On the above findings rendered by the Rent Controller he ordered eviction as against all the four petitioners. On appeals filed by the petitioners, the Appellate Authority held that the ground of wilful default in payment of arrears of rent had been established as against all the petitioners, except the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 138 of 1979. As regards the ground based an bona fide requirement of the premises for demolition and reconstruction, the finding of the Rent Controller was also upheld by the Appellate authority. As regards the allegation of subletting as against the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 136 of 1979, the Appellate Authority found on the materials that the subletting has been duly proved. In these revision petitions the petitioners challenge the findings rendered by the Appellate Authority an the above three grounds.

(2.) ON the question of wilful default in payment of arrears of rent, there is no dispute that for certain months the rents have not been paid. But, such default, it is urged, cannot be take to the wilful. But the finding of the appellate authority is that the default committed by the petitioners -tenants is wilful in that even if the landlady has refused to receive the rent, they should have deposited the amount in a bank or before the Rent Controller which they have not done, and once they have not remitted the rent after knowing the consequences of non -payment, the default should be taken to be wilful. On the materials, I am not able to say that the decision of the appellate authority on this question is erroneous.