R KOOTHAIYAN Vs. T VIJAYAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TENANT is the revision petitioner in both the revision petitions. Both the revisions arise from same proceedings initiated by landlord in R.C.O.P. 2057 of 1995 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Madras.

(2.) THE only ground for eviction was that tenant has defaulted in payment of rent from the month of April to August, 1995 at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. It is averred in the petition that the building originally belonged to landlord's father late P.S. Thangavelan alias P.S.T. Velan and on his death on 24.1.1995, the building fell to the share of landlord on the basis of oral partition between the members of family. Revision Petitioner is in occupation of the building where he is running a business under the name and style "R.K. Shoe Mart" on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- excluding electricity consumption charges. It is further averred in the eviction petition that petitioner was all along irregular in payment of rent. He has defaulted in payment of rent from November, 1994. Petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/- on 16.6.1995 for the two months, i.e., for November, and December 1994 that too after various demands. He further promised to pay Rs. 2,500/- on the same day but he did not pay as promised. A receipt evidencing payment of Rs. 1,000/- was issued by the landlord on 16.6.1995, but the receipt for Rs. 2,500/- was withheld by landlord as the amount was not paid by tenant as promised by him. Tenant on 13.7.1995 paid a sum of Rs. 1,500/- towards rent arrears for three months from January to March, 1995 and landlord gave a receipt on the same date. THEreafter from the month of April 1995 till August 1995 no amount was paid by tenant even after repeated demands were made. It is for the above reason landlord filed the eviction petition seeking eviction.

(3.) IT is seen that Office assessed stamp duty and penalty payable on the agreement. When the same was about to be marked, the office objection regarding stamp duty and penalty was brought to the knowledge of the Rent Controller. At that time, Counsel for petitioner before Rent Controller sought time to pay stamp duty and penalty. Time sought for was granted and on the adjourned date it is represented before Rent Controller that he is not going to pay the same and also did not want to take any steps to have the document marked. Thereafter, M.P. 143 of 1996 was argued in full and Rent Controller passed an order on 23.8.1996 directing tenant to pay a sum of Rs. 8,000/- towards Rent arrears for the month of April 1995 to July 1996 for a period of 16 months. Petitioner herein deposited that amount on 9.9.1996 and M.P. 143 of 1996 was closed on that date. IT was thereafter evidence was taken on Rent Control Petition and eviction was ordered.