- (1.) TENANT in R.C.O.P. No. 1617 of 1998. on the file of XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, (Rent Controller) Madras, is the revision petitioner. The Revision is filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
(2.) PETITIONER herein moved an application before the Rent Controller under Section 17 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, alleging that the landlord has withheld certain amenities and prayed for restoration of the same. It was his case that he became a tenant of the respondent as per lease deed dated 3.9.1993 and the same was being renewed from time to time on expiry of the term. It is further said that the respondent had all on a sudden cut off electricity and water supply with effect from 4.6.1998. The electricity charges are to be paid only once in two months, and on getting the bill from landlord, he used to pay the same. The landlord did not issue the bill, and in fact, the electricity bill is payable only by July 1998. According to tenant, petitioner herein, the action of the landlord is only to forcibly evict the tenant from the demised premises. PETITIONER wants restoration of the amenities immediately. The main contention raised by learned counsel for respondent was that the subject matter of the building was newly constructed, and he was exempted from the provisions of the Rent Control Act. According to him, construction of the building was completed only in August 1993, and, on the date when the application was filed, it had not completed five years. It was also alleged that even before the application was filed, the landlord had terminated the tenancy and he has also filed a suit for recovery of possession. The allegation, regarding withholding of amenities was also denied. It was alleged that the tenant has not paid the electricity and water charges in time and it was after notice the same was disconnected. The Rent Controller, as per order dt. 25.9.1998, dismissed the petition. He came to the conclusion that the building is less than five years old. The matter was taken in appeal without success in R..C.A. No. 710 of 1998. The concurrent findings of the Authorities below are challenged in this Revision. Learned Counsel for petitioners contended that the Orders of the Authorities below are irregular and illegal and, therefore, the same is liable to be revised. Since caveat was entered, the entire revision was heard on merits at the admission stage itself.
(3.) THE only question that requires consideration is, whether the findings of the Authorities below that the building is less than five years old is correct or not. Before going to the facts of the case, let us consider the provision of law. Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act says, "Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to (i) any building for a period of five years from the date on which construction is completed and notified to the local authority concerned; (rest omitted as unnecessary)". ;