JAFFAR SADIQUE Vs. A GOPALAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall govern these two civil revision petitions, namely C. R. P. Nos. 1221 and 1077 of 2007, which arose from the orders of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee made in RCA Nos. 7 of 2005 and 3 of 2006 respectively. Those two RCAs were preferred by the revision petitioners/tenants aggrieved over the order of eviction made in RCOP No. 5 of 2002 at the instance of the landlord and on dismissal of RCOP No. 6 of 2002 for depositing the rental in court at the instance of the tenant.

(2.) THE court heard the learned counsel on either side. The respondent/landlord filed the petition for eviction on different grounds, inter-alia on the ground of willful default, alleging that the first respondent/tenant is carrying on business in the premises belonged to the landlord/petitioner, as tenant from the year 1990; that originally, the monthly rental was Rs. 500/- for each shop and it was raised to Rs. 700/- and thus, for the shops, he was to pay Rs. 1400/- per month; that he wantonly stopped paying the rental from August, 2001; that during June, 2001, the first respondent issued a demand draft for a sum of Rs. 15,400/- for a period of 11 months, i. e. from 1. 8. 2000 to 30. 6. 2001, which was also issued through the counsel appearing for the first respondent in a case filed by the first respondent against the petitioner in O. S. No. 175 of 2000; that there was rental arrears from July, 2001 till the date of filing of the petition and thus, on the ground of willful default, he was to be evicted.

(3.) THE petition was resisted by the tenant, stating that he has been regular in making payment of rental all along the period from the commencement of tenancy; that when the landlord interfered with the peaceful possession, the tenant, namely, the first respondent filed O. S. No. 175 of 2000, seeking for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant therein from interfering with the possession except by due process of law; that for the periods of 11 months till June, 2001, the payments were made through the counsel, who appeared for the defendant in O. S. No. 175 of 2000 and thereafter, from July, 2001 to March, 2002, the petition was also filed for depositing the rental, since the rental was refused to be received and the same has also been deposited into the court and under these circumstances, there was no default much less willful default and hence, the petition was to be dismissed.