- (1.) TENANT in R.C.O.P.No.15 of 1995 on the file of Rent Controller/District Munsif, Tenkasi is the revision petitioner.
(2.) LANDLORD filed eviction petition on the grounds that tenant has committed wilful default, for own occupation and also on the ground that tenant is causing nuisance to landlord and neighbours. Only ground survives in this revision is whether tenant is liable to be evicted on the ground of wilful default and bona fide own use. It may be stated that before Rent Controller eviction was ordered only on the ground of wilful default and in appeal, the claim for own occupation was allowed by appellate authority. Material facts could be summarised thus: Revision petitioner was originally owner of the scheduled premises. He along with this wife sold the property to landlord and it is agreed that petitioner herein took the building on rental arrangement after the same. Rate of rent is Rs.300 per month. According to landlord. Tenant was not in the habit of paying rent regularly. There is only one water connection for th entire premises where there are other tenants also. Since petitioner was appropriating entire water other tenants began to object to the same and consequently tenant refused to talk with landlord. From the month of February, 1994 tenant used to send rent by money order and without objection, landlord used to receive the same. From July, 1994 no rent was paid. According to tenant since misunderstanding arose between parties he filed a suit as O.S.No.343 of 1994 and obtained injunction against landlord from forcibly evicting him. In that proceeding he is depositing rent and therefore he is not wilful defaulter. Landlord further claimed eviction on the ground that building is required for his son's own occupation. The same was challenged by tenant on the ground that the claim is without any bona fide and few months before eviction petition was filed a building belong to landlord became vacant and the same was rented out to a person for higher rent. I will first consider the question whether tenant is liable to be evicted on the ground that he has committed default and whether that is wilful default.
(3.) THE statement of facts entered by appellate authority is not disputed by tenant. In the facts stated by appellate authority it is said that for the rent due for August, 1994. the same was deposited in O.S.No.343 of 1994 on 13.9.1994. Rent for September, 1994 was deposited in the suit in February, 1995. Rent from October, 1994 till February, 1995 was deposited in the suit on 2.5.1995. Rent for June, 1995 was deposited in court on 20.6.1995. Rent for August, 1995 was deposited on 4.9.1995 and rent due for October, 1995 was deposited on 5.2.1996 in the suit. Rent for November, 1995 was deposited open 7.12.1995. THE fact that these amounts are deposited in civil suit is not disputed. It could also be seen that these deposits are made not on the due dates but according to the convenience of tenants. In this connection it may also be noted that the claim of landlord is that even though there is no contract to send rent by money order, he used to receive the same without objection and rent till June, 1994 was sent by money order. From July, 1994 rent was not paid. Deposits in civil court also starts from August, 1994 only. It could also be seen that when rent control appeal was pending before appellate authority, admitting that there is default for the month of July, 1994 the same was paid to landlord's counsel on 19.7.1999. The amount was received under protest. The question arises for consideration is whether deposits made in civil court as well as long delay in payment of rent for the month of July, 1994 will exonerate petitioner from the consequence of being evicted. ;