- (1.) THE tenant is the review petitioner. THE landlord T.M. Sulaiman filed a petition under Secs.l0(2)(i) and 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, for eviction of the tenant in R.C.O.P. No.253 of 1985 on the file of the Rent Controller/ District Munsif, Coimbatore, on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and for additional accommodation. THE eviction petition was resisted by the tenant contending that he had not committed any default in payment of rent and that the requirement of the landlord for additional accommodation is not bona fide. THE learned Rent Controller dismissed the petition against which the legal representatives of the landlord T.M. Sulaiman, the respondent herein, filed R.C.A. No.67 of 1989 on the file of the Appellate Authority/ Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. THE learned Appellate Authority has confirmed the findings of the learned Rent Controller insofar as it relates to the requirement of the premises for additional accommodation but ordered eviction on the ground of wilful default . in payment of rent. THE civil revision petition was filed by the tenant against the finding of the learned Appellate Authority.
(2.) WHEN the revision came up for final hearing, the learned counsel for the tenant contended that the tenant has deposited the entire arrears of rent for the period in question and therefore, there is no wilful default. I verified the original petition. Since there is no endorsement of payment of rent made in the original petition and since the learned counsel for the tenant also was not in a position to place before this Court any further proof to show that the entire arrears was paid on the first hearing date or before the first hearing of the original petition, I rejected the contention of the tenant on the short ground. In the concluding portion of my judgment, I have observed thus: "I have gone through the orders of the courts below. The authorities below have clearly found on evidence that the petitioner is in arrears and therefore, is liable to be evicted. It is also contended by the respondent that the petitioner's subsequent conduct in not paying the rents regularly every month should also be taken into account in considering the facts of wilful default and in ordering the eviction. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has been paying the rent regularly every month. In the absence of any proof for payment of arrears of rent on the first hearing date as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner/ tenant is not entitled to claim to continue to be in the premises in question. No other point is argued by both the parties. Therefore, the order of the authority below is confirmed and the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs." To review the above order of mine dated 8.8.1996, the present review application has been filed. This Court admitted the same on 17.10.1996 and ordered notice to the respondents. The respondents are now represented by Mr. V. Manohar. Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Coun- sel appearing for the tenant contended that the tenant has now traced out the old records and found that he has paid the rent for the period in question by way of two money orders on 30.9.1985, that he has sent a sum of Rs.1,200 representing the rent from February to September, 1985, that the same was received by the landlord T.N. Sulaiman on 30.10.1985 and that since the date of receipt of the rent was on 3.10.1985, i.e., prior to the first effective hearing, viz. 10.10.1985, the finding of this Court in the revision dated 8.8.1996 has to be reconsidered on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Dakaya alias Dakaiyan v. Sree Ramachandran v. Krishnarqj, 1996 2 CTC 130e judgments are applied, the order of eviction is liable to be set aside. It is also stated in the affidavit filed in support of C.M.P. No. 15443 of 1996 that the non-production of the money order receipts at the earliest point of time was neither wilful nor wanton. The learned counsel for the landlords contended that even though the first date of hearing was on 30.8.1985 and the summons were served on 7.8.1985, the tenant has paid the rent only on 3.10.1985 and therefore, he is not entitled to the benefits of the judgments cited by him. The following dates and particulars are relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue. The particulars were gathered from the original petition. We are not concerned with the other dates.
(3.) AS already noticed, along with the review application, C.M.P. No. 15443 of 1996 has been filed to receive the original money order receipts and the acknowledgment of the money orders as additional documents. They are: (i) 30.9.1985 Postal payment receipt for money order of Rs.1,000. (ii) 30.9.1985 Postal payment receipt for money order of Rs.200. (iii) 3.10.1985 Acknowledgment and receipt of the money order by T.M. Sulaiman amount of Rs.1,000. (iv) 3.10.1985 Acknowledgment and receipt of money order by T.M. Sulaiman of Rs.200. I have perused the two postal payment receipts and the acknowledgments by T.M. Sulaiman, the original owner. money order receipt No.6809 a sum of Rs.1,000 was sent to T.M. Sulaiman on 30.9.1985 and in money order receipt No.6810, a sum of Rs.200 was sent to T.M. Sulaiman on the same day. T.M. Sulaiman's name is shown in the column "payee" in both the receipts. T.M. Sulaiman has received both the money orders on 3.10.1985. Therefore, accepting the explanation of the tenant for their non-production earlier, C.M.P No. 15443 of 1996 is ordered and the additional documents filed are marked as Exs.R-1 to R-4 on the side of the tenant. Mr.V. Manohar, learned counsel for the respondents/ landlords contended that the payment received on 3.10.1985 cannot be construed as the payment either on the first hearing, viz., on 30.8.1985 or on the next adjourned hearing date i.e., on 1.10.1985 and that even though the tenant was served with summons on 7.8.1985, he has not paid the arrears of rent either on 30.8.1985 or on 1.10.1985 and as such, he is not entitled to the indulgence of this Court. ;