V S HAMID SULTAN Vs. ABDUL LATHEEF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, in R. C. A. No. 19 of 1993 confirming the judgment of the learned Rent Controller, Thiruvarur, in R. C. O. P. No. 14 of 1992. The landlord/petitioner in the R. C. O. P. is the revision petitioner.

(2.) IN the petition filed by the landlord, it is contend that the respondent is the tenant in the residential building. The tenancy was the first of every English calendar month and the same was oral. The monthly rent was only Rs. 80 and the respondent was not regular in payment of rent and he was a chronic defaulter. He has also not paid rent from June, 1989 and had committed wilful default inspite of repeated demands. The conduct of the respondent shows supine indifference and callousness. When the petitioner pressed the respondent to pay the arrears of rent, he had issued a lawyer's notice on 6. 1. 1992 claiming as though there was only arrears of rent for two months. But the petitioner gave a reply and terminated his tenancy on 29. 2. 1991 calling upon him to deliver vacant possession by 1. 3. 1992. The respondent gave a reply contending false allegations. The allegations in the reply notice were denied and the respondent did not carry out any repairs in the building. The alleged repairs were only invention of the tenant for the purpose of his case. Nor was the tenant allowed to do any repairs. The rent up to March, 1992 was rs. 2,720 and therefore, the respondent had to be evicted forthwith. It was further contended that the petitioner's family had increased in number and his son Syed rahman wanted to live separately from the family and therefore, the building was required for his own occupation of his family member and he was not occupying a residential building of his own. Therefore, the requirement of the petitioner was bona fide.

(3.) DURING the hearing I did entertain a feeling that with reference to the controversy relating to the statement made in paragraph 3 of the counter in R. C. O. P. , to the effect that the tenant had sent the rent for january, 1991 by Money Order, was refused by the lessor, the revision may have to be remanded to the Rent Controller for ascertaining the correct position. Since no evidence had been filed on the side of the tenant to prove the payment through Money Order. I called upon the counsel for the respondent to explain the same and according to him, mentioning of the year 1991 was only typing mistake and that though the date had been corrected in the original, by oversight in the copies the corrections in the original had not been initiated. Therefore, I thought that the real position has to be analysed by proper evidence. But on a perusal of the entire pleadings and the evidence and the arguments before the Courts below, I am convinced that it is only a typographical error and it is not the case of the tenant that the rents for the period from January, 1991 had been sent by Money Order. The exhibits filed on his side pertain only to the period between November, 1991 to May, 1992 (Exs. R. 1 to R. 5 ). A perusal of the judgments of the Courts below also disclose that no such argument by the landlord had been projected before both the Courts below. It is also interesting to note that the petitioner is also guilty of such a mistake as could be seen form paragraph 3 of the petition in as could be seen from paragraph 3 of the petition in R. C. O. P. where he had mentioned that the tenancy was terminated by 29. 2. 1991. The correct date would be 29. 2. 1992. Since the mentioning of the year in paragraph 3 as 1991, is obviously a typing mistake, no further enquiry or finding is necessary.