SUBBIAH Vs. GOPALAKRISHNA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is the revision petitioner. THE respondent/landlord sought his eviction on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent.

(2.) THE averments made in the petition for eviction are as under:

(3.) MR. S.K.Rakunathan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the proceedings were initiated by the landlord for eviction of the tenant on the ground of alleged default in the payment of difference between the contractual rent and the fair rent. The legal position was that the landlord would not be entitled to hold it against the tenant and only on 1.8.1996. In J.Visalakshi Ammal v. T.B.Sathya Narayana, 1996 (2) L.W. 849, a Bench of this Court over -ruled the earlier decisions of this Court in Ranganathan v. M.Suri, 1987 (100) L.W. 708, and Nelson v. Ranganathan Mudaliar, 1995 (I) CTC 446: 1995 TLNJ 270 and held that in a case where a certain amount becomes due from the tenant as a result of the fair rent being fixed at a higher figure than the agreed rent, the failure to pay the difference between the fair rent and the agreed rent will attract the provisions relating to wilful. default unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary and therefore the tenant in the instant case cannot be held to have committed wilful default and that in any event the tenant having paid the difference in the rent for the relevant period during the pendency of the C.R.P. cannot be held to have committed wilful default.