VASAVAMBAL Vs. CHENNIAPPA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlady, who succeeded before the Rent Controller and lost before the appellate authority, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition, which arises out of an application filed by her for an order of eviction against the respondent under Sections 10(2)(1) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act According to the case of the petitioner, the premises in the possession of the respondent was leased out to him on 14th March, 1971, on a monthly rent of Rs. 40. The rents in respect of the premises were not paid by the respondent from 14th March, 1974. Thereupon, the petitioner issued a notice on 7th Aug., 1976, terminating the tenancy of the respondent and in spite of repeated demands according to the petitioner the respondent had not paid the rents and had thus committed wilful default, which would entitle her to obtain an order of eviction against him. In addition, the petitioner also claimed that since she is an old woman with no sons or daughters to look after her and as she was living under the care and protection of the sister's daughter, she required the premises for running a shop to eke out her livelihood.

(2.) The respondent herein, while admitting the lease, contended that he had paid a sum of Rs. 500 as advance to the petitioner at the time of the lease. He stoutly denied that he had committed wilful default in the payment of rents but on the contrary claimed that he was very regular in the payment of rents. In addition it was also claimed by him that the petitioner refused to receive the rents with ulterior design to get an enhanced rent, and if not, to evict him. The bonafide requirement of the petitioner was also disputed.

(3.) The Rent Controller found that the respondent had paid only Rs. 260 as advance as mentioned in the lease agreement marked as Exhibit A-1. The claim of the respondent that he spent amounts towards the repair of the premises was negatived. The default in the payment of rent committed by the respondent was held be wilful. It was also further held that the petitioner required the premises bonafide for running a shop. On those findings an order of eviction was granted in favour of the petitioner. On appeal, in R.C.A. No. 2t of 1977 before the Appellate Authority, Udumalpet, it found that the respondent had committed default in the payment of rent and that even after adjusting the advance amount, respondent had not paid the rent for the period in question. However, the Appellate Authority held that under the notices issued by the petitioner, no clear two month's time as required by the Explanation added to Sec. 10(2) has been given and consequently, the default committed by the respondent cannot be held to be wilful. On the question of bonafide requirement of the petitioner, the Appellate Authority held that such requirement is not made out. On these findings, the application for eviction was dismissed.