Decided on February 12,2019

M Ekambaram Appellant
Khursheet Begum Respondents


N.Sathish Kumar, J. - (1.) Aggrieved over the concurrent finding of the Courts below in dismissing the petition filed by the revision petitioner against the landlord under section 8 of the Tamilnadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the present revision has been filed.
(2.) Brief facts leading to filing of this revision is as follows : The revision petitioner is a tenant under the respondents on a monthly rent of Rs.250/-. As the respondents have cut the amenities, the revision petitioner has filed a petition to restore the amenities in H.R.C.O.P.No.63 of 1995 and the above application has been allowed. Aggrieved over the same, the respondents started to evade receiving rent in order to create a ground for eviction. Thereafter, the petitioner sent rent by Demand Drafts drawn on Catholic Syrian Bank on 06.10.1987, 06.11.1987, 05.12.1987 and 06.01.1988 and the respondent received the demand drafts. However, for the month of January, 1988, he refused to receive the demand draft. Hence, the petitioner sought permission of the Court to deposit rent in the Court.
(3.) The respondents disputing the allegation that he had received the rent by way of Demand Drafts, it is his contention that he never received any such demand draft and submitted that the petitioner is a willful defaulter and prayed for dismissal of the application. The Rent Controller dismissed the application on the ground that the requirement contemplated under Section 8 of Tamilnadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act has not been followed for depositing the rent and dismissed the application. As against which, an appeal has been preferred before the Rent Control Appellate authority and the appellate authority also confirmed the finding of the trial Court. As against which, the present revision has been filed.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.