M MEENAKSHISUNDARAM Vs. S VENKATESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant, who succeeded before the Rent Controller and lost before the Appellate Authority, is the petitoner this civil revision petition. The respondent herein Med. H. R. C. Wo. 1629 of 1978 before 9th Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras praying for an order of eviction against the Petitioner herein under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (18 of 1960), as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), According to the case of the respondent, he is the owner and Iandlord of premises bearing old door No. 11 and new No. 20 Thandavarayan St, Royapettah, Madras and that the Petitioner. who is a tenant in occupation on a monthly rental of Rs. 85 besides electricity charges~ had wilfully defaulted in the payment of rents for the period from March, 1977 to March, 1978. The respondent issued a notice terminating the tenancy calling upon the petitioner to quit and deliver vacant possession of the portion under his occupation, but since the Petitioner did not do so the respondent initiated proceeding for an order of eviction against the petitioner as aforesaid,

(2.) That application was resisted by the Petitioner herein on the ground that the respondent owed a sum of Rupees 11,200/- as on 27-2-1977 to the petitioner and his wife on two promissory notes of Rs. 5600/-each and that at the time of the execution ~of the promissory notes, it was agreed that out of the interest payable in respect of the promissory note in favour of the petitioner's wife, the monthly rental of Rs. 60/~ and the actual electricity charges payable for every month should be adjusted and the the respondent should pay the petitioner and his wife the balance of interest due under the said promissory note and the entire interest in respect of the Promissory note in favour of the petitioner. The further case of the Petitioner was that every month, letters. had been written by his wife under certificate of posting about the adjustment of rent and electricity charges as well as the balance of interest payable by the respondent to which the respondent did not send any reply but had come forward with the application for eviction as if the petitioner had committed wilful default. The petitioner, therefore, contended that there was no wilful default in the Payment of rents and that the application for eviction should be dismissed.

(3.) Before the Rent Controller (9th Judge, Small Cause Court, Madras) the respondent exapanded himself as P. W. 1, and relied on Exs. P. 1 and P, 2, while the petitioner herein examined himself as R. W. 1, and marked Exs. R. I to R. 13. On a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the learned Rent Controller found that there was an agreement between the petitioner and the respondent for the adjustment of rent from the interest payable by the respondent in respect of the Promissory note executed by the respondent in favour of the wife of the petitioner. On this conclusion, the Rent Controller held that the petitioner has not committed any wilful default in the payment of monthly rents. Consequent to this finding, the petition for eviction was dismissed. Aggriev'ed by this, the respondent herein preferred an appeal in H. R. A. No. 1538 of 1979, to the appellate authority (6th Judge, Small Cause Court, Madras). The appellate authority held that since there was no written agreement with reference to the adjustment of the rent as well as the electricity charges towards the interest payable by the respondent to the wife of the petitioner, the arrangement set up by the petitioner cannot be accepted. In addition, despite several letters produced by the petitioner and addressed by the wife of the petitioner to the respondent claiming an adjustment of the rent and electricity charges towards the interest payable by the respondent to, the wife of the petitioner, the appellate authority held that there is no Proof to establish that those letters were received by the respondent and therefore, those letters cannot be relied on to establish an agreement as pleaded by the petitioner. On this conclusion, the appellate authority held that the petitioner had committed willful default in a payment of rent and ordered his eviction granting two months time to vacate the premises in question. It is the correctness of this order that is challenged in this civil revision 'petition.