KAMARUNNISSHAL BEGUM Vs. S A SHAJAHAN ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The minimum facts that are necessary for the disposal of this revision may be stated as follows :

(2.) Mr.S.Sadasivan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that while the respondent/tenant does not deny that he had committed default, yet in order to establish that he had not committed wilful default, he has issued a cheque dated 04.07.2003 along with a covering letter in Ext.R-2, but safely he has not produced the acknowledgement card sent by the revision petitioner in order to establish as to when exactly the said mail was dispatched to the revision petitioner. This, in other words would mean, that the said amount might not have been dispatched on the day the respondent claims. The learned counsel also submitted that the conduct of the tenant right from the comencement of tenancy is such that he frequently violated the obligation to pay rent promptly before the 5th day of every suceeding month. He suo moto created his own pattern of making payments in lumpsum towards rent for few months, and this is contrary to his contractual obligation and that this conduct of the tenant must also be taken into consideration in determining whether that the default of the tenant was wilful or not.

(3.) Per contra, Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel for the respondent/tenant would submit that the scheme of the Rent Control Act does not make every kind of default a wilful default, that, the wilful nature of the default must be understood as per the Explanation provided to Section 10(2) of the Act and also the proviso. Further, since the Rent Controller has exercised his discretion within the proviso to Section 10(2) of the Act, the said order has become conclusive and it is not subject to the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. He relied on the ratio of the authority in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Vs. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 5 CTC 217. As per the ratio declared in the the said authority, the High Court may not exercise its revisional jurisdiction unless the finding of facts by the Courts below is perverse or it has got its law wrong. Inasmuch as the Rent Controller has exercised his discretion without any degree of perversity, nor is there any indication that he has not applied law to the facts before it. This case is one which fits in all fours within the ratio declared by the Supreme Court.