R SRINIVASAN Vs. V THANGARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The revision petitioner in each of the petitions is the landlord in R.C.O.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 1988 respectively on the file of the Rent Controller, Manapparai. The respondents in both the revisions are the respective respondents in those proceedings, In R.C.O.P.No.2 of 1988 there was only one tenant and on account of his death, his legal representatives have come to be brought on record. Eviction was sought for in both the cases on two grounds, viz., wilful default in payment of rent and on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. The learned Rent Controller ordered eviction on both the grounds. On appeal by the respective tenants. the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller in both the cases. Hence, these two revisions.

(2.) I heard Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in each case and Mr.D.Rajendran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in each case. The pleading in the first rent control case, on the material aspects is as follows:

(3.) IN the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side. I perused the entire materials including the judgments brought to my notice with care and caution. The finding of fact rendered by the Appellate Authority on the ground of wilful default in each case on the basis of the materials available is that the tenant in each case had been sending the rent due by him month after month to the landlord under various money orders and they have been refused. A perusal of the materials shows that the refusal appears to be unjustified. The finding of fact rendered by the Appellate Authority is also that the tenant had been periodically, month after month, depositing the rent due by him on the refusal of the money orders, in the bank. The fact also remains that immediately after the filing of the Rent Control Petition, the tenant had withdrawn the money from the bank and paid the same to the landlord. It is also not disputed that the tenant is not in arrears. Therefore, the only question that comes up for consideration is whether on the given facts available in this case, could it be said that the tenant is guilty of wilful default in the payment of rents. It may be true that there is a default but could it be said that it is wilful, is a question that has to be answered. A learned Judge of this Court in the judgment reported in Rajalinga Chettiar v. Nataraja Mudaliar Rajalinga Chettiar v. Nataraja Mudaliar Rajalinga Chettiar v. Nataraja Mudaliar, (1995)1 MLJ. 211had considered all the judgments of this Court available both for an against on thisissue and held that Sec.8 of the Act is only an enabling provision. Seven judgments were cited for the above mentioned proposition and equal number of judgments were cited for the opposite proposition. One of the judgments considered by the learned Judge was a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Durgai Ammal v. R.T.Mani Durgai Ammal v. R.T.Mani Durgai Ammal v. R.T.Mani (1989)1 L.W. 155. IN Minor Rajakumari a learned single Judge has held as follows: