A G PUNYAKOTI Vs. M MEERA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions disclose how mechanically additional documentary evidence has been accepted and acted upon by the appellate authority who was dealing with two appeals filed by the landlady and the tenant respectively. This order disposes of two revision petitions filed by the tenant challenging the order of eviction which is made against him by the appellate authority on the grounds of wilful default and bona fide need of the landlady of the premises in question for her own occupation. The Rent Controller had accepted the case of the landlady with regard to the wilful default, but had rejected the claim on the ground of owner�s occupation. Since a decree for eviction was passed, the tenant filed an appeal challenging the decree for eviction and the landlady also filed an appeal because her claim for bona fide requirement of the premises in question for her own occupation was rejected. Both these appeals were disposed of by a common judgment by the appellate authority.

(2.) Admittedly, the landlady was a resident of Gobichettipalayam, Coimbatore Dt. as will be clear from a notice given by her on the 15th March, 1982. She filed a petition on the 25th June, 1982, claiming that the rent for May, 1981 and for the months March, 1982 to May, 1982, remained unpaid. She also pleaded that she was residing in a rented premises at No.39, Mandaveli Lane, Mylapore, Madras, paying a rent of Rs. 200 per month, that she has no other house of her own in the city of Madras, except the premises in question, that she required the portion occupied by the tenant for her own use and occupation and that the requirement was bona fide. The tenant in his reply claimed that the rent for May, 1981 was already sent by him to her residential address in June, 1981, but that the envelope containing the demand draft sent by registered post had come back with the endorsement that nobody was found at the address which was written correctly and which was the same address to which earlier rent had been sent. Admittedly, the rent had throughout been sent to the landlady by demand draft by registered post. The tenant�s further case was that after the receipt of the notice from the lawyer demanding the sum of Rs. 1,000 being the rent for period June, 1981 to March, 1982 by the letter dated 24th March, 1982, the tenant had sent by demand draft to the advocate of the landlady a sum of Rs.900 towards the rent for the months June, 1981 to February, 1982. By the accompanying letter, the tenant wanted to know to what address the future rent was to be sent. But since no communication was received from the landlady, the rent for March and April, 1982 fell in arrears.

(3.) The trial Judge took the view that the requirement of the landlady was not bona fide and rejeced the evidence of the husband of the landlady that the landlady was residing in rented premises at Madras. He took notice of the fact that, though the husband had deposed that he was residing at Madras from April, 1981 the, landlady, in the notice given to the tenant on 15th March, 1982, had given her Gobichettipalayam address. However, the trial Judge accepted the case of wilful default in payment of rent for the months of March and April, 1982. He took the view that the rent for the months of March and April, 1982, could have been sent by the tenant to the counsel for the landlady.