N NATWAJAN Vs. S SRINIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NATARAJAN, the petitioner herein is the landlord. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority setting aside the order of eviction in the petition in R.C.O.P. No. 3516 of 1988 on the file of XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, filed by the petitioner under Section 10(2)(i) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, on the ground of wilful default, the landlord has filed this Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner/landlord, the tenant, respondent herein has defaulted in payment of rent from November 1986 to September 1988. ACCORDING to the tenant, the respondent herein, the entire rent has been paid at the rate of Rs. 52/- which was fixed by the Appellate Authority as fair rent, even before filing of the Rent Control Original Petition, on 17.11.1988 and as such, there is no Cause of action.

(3.) IT is brought to my notice the decision in the case of A.S. Mohamed Yosuf v. AK, Anwar Basha (1990 (2) R.C.J. 64 = 1990-1-L.W. 111), wherein it is held that in a case filed on the ground of wilful default when the defence of the tenant is that the rent has already been paid, the tenant has to prove the said fact by acceptable evidence. While referring the judgment in the case of Maruthachala Udayar v. Dandapani reported in 93 L.W. 59 equivalent to 1980 (1) M.LJ. 169 would refer to the following observation: