N SUBRAMANIA MUDALIAR Vs. ESAKKI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 30.1.1996 made in R.C.A.No.2 of 1995 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the Court of Subordinate Judge, Ambasamudram thereby confirming the fair and decretal order dated 22.3.1995 made in R.C.O.P.No.9 of 1993 by the Rent Controller and the Principal District Munsif, Ambasamudram.

(2.) ORIGINALLY, it is the landladies, who filed the petition before the Rent Controller on two specific grounds viz., (i) wilful default in payment of the rents under Sec.10(2)(i) and (ii) for personal use and occupation under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. contending that the premises was originally belonging to one Mylerum Perumal and on his death, both the respondents herein continued to be in possession and ultimately it fell to the share of the second respondent herein in the family partition, that for years together, the revision petitioner/tenant is in occupation of the property as a tenant on payment of a monthly rent of Rs.40 which on being enhanced gradually became Rs.90 per mensem; that from the Tamil month of Panguni of the year 1166, the tenant stopped payment of the rent wilfully, which has to be remitted within 10th of every month and entries made into the rental passbook; that in spite having demanded the rent by the respondents herein in person and through men, the tenant did not pay the arrears of rent, as a result of which, in the name of the first respondent herein, a legal notice has been sent, but without proper instruction, the lawyer had wrongly averred in his notice that the revision petitioner/tenant had paid the rent upto December, 1991, taking advantage of which, admitting the same, a reply had been sent by the tenant with false and fictious contentions further confirming that there was no default in the payment of the lease rent.

(3.) THE Rent Controller, in consideration of the above facts and circumstances pleaded by parties and in further consideration of the evidence placed on record, framing three points and appreciating the evidence in his own way, had allowed the rent control application on both the grounds.