M R SOLAI Vs. P RAMANUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the petition filed by the respondent under Section 10 (2) (1) of the Tamilnadu Lease and Rent Control Act, the following are stated - The respondent is tenant under this petitioner for a monthly rent of Rs.325/-. From April 1996 onwards, he has not paid the rent upto December 1996. The arrears of rent is Rs.2,925/-. On 25.12.96, the respondent sent a notice requesting the landlord to effect some repairs. Afterwards, on 08.01.97, he sent a demand draft for Rs.325/- for a month's rent which was refused by the petitioner on 09.01.97. On 10.01.97, this petitioner sent a notice requiring the respondent to pay the arrears of rent. Even then, he did not pay and hence the petition has been filed for eviction under the ground of wilful default.

(2.) IN the counter filed by the respondent/tenant, the following are stated - This respondent has paid Rs.5,000/- as advance. From April 1998 onwards, the respondent has been tenant under him. He had been paying the rent every month without any default. The landlord has not issued any receipts, but he is passing receipts to other tenants. On 07.12.96, he paid the rent for November '96. This respondent requested the landlord to effect repairs in the portion which is in his possession for which the reply notice was sent to him with false particulars. On 07.01.97, this respondent sent one month rent through demand draft but it was refused by the landlord. He also sent notice requiring the landlord to specify a Bank. However, the landlord sent a reply notice with incorrect particulars. It is false to state that the respondent was in arrears of Rs.2925/-. For the months of February and March 1997, he sent demand draft towards two months rent which was also refused by the landlord. Taking advantage of non-issuance of receipts, the petitioner has filed this eviction petition. Hence, the petition has to be dismissed.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.R. Subramanian laboured hard by describing that the petitioner was not at all in arrears and that he did not commit any wilful default. It is his contention that the oral evidence of the landlord would go to show that there was no default, much less wilful default on the part of this petitioner. In the cross examination, this respondent, as P.W.1 would state that it is incorrect to state that he was not in the habit of passing the receipts for payment of rent and that there was no wilful default.