MARUDACHALA UDAYER Vs. DHANAPANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred by the landlord under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The respondent herein is the tenant under the Act. The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant on two grounds. One is the wilful default in the payment of the rents at the rate of Rs. 25 per month alleged to have been committed by the tenant from March, 1973 to July, 1974. The second ground is that he requires the premises in question for the occupation of his daughter. The petition for eviction was contested by the tenant. According to the tenant, the rate of rent is only Rs. 22.50 per month and he has paid the rents at the rate of Rs. 2250 up to July, 1974, but the landlord never issued any receipts for the payments made by the tenant. The case of the landlord that he requires the premises for the occupation of his daughter was also not accepted by the tenant and such a case of the landlord was characterised as lacking in bona fides. The Rent Controller considered the case of the parties on the materials placed before him and found that the case of the landlord with reference to the requirement of the premises for the occupation of his daughter is not bona fide and the said ground urged for eviction of the tenant was negatived However, on the question of default, the Rent Controller found that the rate of rent is Rs. 22.50 per month and upheld the case of the landlord that there was wilful default committed by the tenant in the payment of the rents. In this view, eviction of the tenant was ordered by the Rent Controller.

(2.) The tenant preferred an appeal and the Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the Rent Controller on the question of wilful default and dismissed the petition for eviction. Aggrieved by the orders of the Appellate Authority, the landlord has preferred the present revision. Mr. R.N. Kothandaraman learned Counsel for the petitioner would urge that the orders of the Appellate Author it suffers from impropriety, irregularity an incorrectness as well as illegality, in that the scope of the provision of the Act has not been kept in mind by the Appellate Authority and even on the facts placed before the Court, there has been an omission to draw the proper judicial inference therefrom by the Appellate Authority.

(3.) Mr. K.M. Santhanagopalan, learned Counsel for the respondent, would urge that this Court should not interfere in revision with the findings rendered by the Appellate Authority which according to the learned Counsel, are factual. This submission of the learned Counsel omits to take note of the scope of the powers of revision available to this Court under Section 25 of the Act. it has been repeatedly held by this Court that the powers under Section 25 of the Act are wide enough to warrant interference if the Courts below, even on the admitted facts, chose to draw an improper and a wrong inference which cannot find sustenance by the provisions of the Act.