(1.) THE landlord is the revision petitioner in this Civil revision Petition. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Rent control Appeal preferred by tenant, which was allowed by the Rent Control appellate Authority setting aside the eviction of the tenant from the petition premises ordered by the Rent Controller on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent.
(2.) THE landlord as petitioner filed the Rent Control original Petition seeking eviction of the respondent/tenant from the petition non-residential premises bearing Door No. 30, Big Bazaar Street,Dindigul . In the petition, it is stated that the petition premises originally belonged to one Krishnan Chettiar , father of the petitioner, under whom the deceased first respondent became a tenant 40 years ago and after allotment of the petition premises to the petitioner in the family partition, the deceased first respondent also attorned tenancy. It is stated that the tenant paid rent only till December 1990 and thereafter, from January 1991 till September 1993, he committed default in payment of rent wilfully. THE petitioner is running a financial company in a rental building. It is further stated that the two major sons of the petitioner require the building to run a business. THE petitioner does not own any non-residential building in the Town except the petition building. It was informed that the respondent would vacate the building within two months and pay the arrears of rent but he has not vacated the petition premises. THE deceased first respondent paid rent of Rs. 400 for the month of January 1993 on 5. 2. 993 and it was refused by the petitioner since the arrears of rent was not paid. THE deceased first respondent caused notice on 5. 2. 1993 for deposit of rent and reply was sent by the petitioner on 9. 2. 1993. THEn the petitioner issued a notice through his Advocate on 4. 3. 1993 claiming arrears of rent and for eviction of the petition premises for which the respondent gave a false reply. THE respondent/tenant also filed H. R. C. O. P. No. 23 of 1993 for deposit of rent and the petition was opposed by filing counter. On these grounds, the petitioner/landlord sought for eviction of the respondent/tenant from the petition premises.
(3.) IT is seen from Ex. B. 39, copy of the petition in h. R. C. O. P. No. 23 of 1993 filed under Section 8 (5) of the Act, that the rent sent for the month of January 1993 on 5. 2. 1993 and the rent sent for the months of January and February 1993 on 9. 3. 1993 were refused and the landlord also not informed the tenant about the name of the Bank for deposit of rent to the credit of the landlord. IT appears that the said petition was allowed after contest on 27. 10. 1994. In fact, as per Ex. B. 40, it was informed by the learned counsel for the landlord that if the rental amount is sent by Money Order, he is willing to receive the same and also requested him to send rent for the subsequent months by Money Order directly to the landlord. Ex. B. 40 is dated 28. 12. 1994. According to the landlord, the tenant has committed default wilfully in payment of rent from January 1990, as per ex. B. 7 and from January 1991 to September 1993 as per the Rent Control Original petition. IT is contended by the tenant that the landlord is not in the habit of issuing receipts for the rental amount paid. According to the landlord, he issued rental receipt for the rental amount paid by the tenant and in fact, one such receipt issued is Ex. A. 5, which relates to the month of May 1978 and is dated 7. 6. 1978, and also Ex. B. 41 dated 7. 11. 1986 issued to the deceased first respondent. But no other receipt or counterfoil of the rental book has been filed by the landlord to show that the deceased first respondent paid rent only up to the month of December 1989 as claimed in Ex. B. 7 or up to December 1990 as claimed in the Rent Control Original Petition and that thereafter, the deceased first respondent failed in payment of rental arrears and with the deliberate intention, he committed default in payment of rent either from january 1990 or from January 1991 to September 1993. The tenant also filed h. R. C. O. P. No. 23 of 1993 under Section 8 (5) of the Act for depositing rent in court since the landlord refused to receive the rent for the month of January 1993 on 9. 2. 1993 and also rent for the months of January 1993 and February 1993 on 9. 3. 1993 and that the said petition was allowed and he deposited the rent for the month of January 1993 onwards. Therefore, it cannot be said that the tenant has committed default in payment of rent wilfull y from January 1993 to September 1993.