- (1.) THIS revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in M.P.No.171 of 2005 dated 24.1.2006, an application filed under section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.
(2.) THE revision petitioner is the respondent/tenant and the respondent herein is the petitioner/landlord before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. The case of the petitioner/landlord before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority would be as follows: The respondent is a tenant in respect of a shop on a monthly rent of Rs.500/- excluding the electricity charges. RCOP.No.1896 of 2003 was filed by the petitioner for eviction of the respondent on the grounds of wilful default, ceased to occupy and for additional accommodation. The learned Rent Controller ordered eviction on the ground of wilful default and ceased to occupy the petition premises. The respondent has wilfully and wantonly failed to pay the rent from 1.6.99 onwards. No rent was paid even after the filing of RCOP. The respondent is liable to pay the rental arrears from 1.6.99 to 31.12.2004 as on date. Inspite of the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the respondent failed to pay the rental arrears. The objection raised in the counter filed by the respondent/tenant would be as follows: The respondent deny that the monthly rent of Rs.500/- fixed for the petition premises. Actually the rent was only Rs.200/- exclusive of electricity charges. The learned Rent Controller, on erroneous appreciation of facts, has allowed the eviction petition. The Rent Controller solely relied on Ex.P1 for passing order on the ground of wilful default. Ex.P1 did not contain the signature of the respondent herein. Ex.P1 is a concocted document created for the purpose of this case. There is a discrepancy in pleading regarding the period of default. The learned Rent Controller failed to give findings regarding the quantum of rent. Admittedly, the area of the petition premises is only 48 sq.ft and so it is highly unbelievable that the rent is Rs.500/- . If at all the respondent committed any wilful default the petitioner should have filed application under section 11(4) before the trial court. The respondent is ready and willing to pay the admitted arrears of rent @ Rs.200/- per month upto date. The petitioner refused to receive the monthly rent. So the respondent filed RCOP.No.130 of 2004 for depositing the rent into Court and RCOP.131 of 2004 for restoration of electricity supply. These RCOPs were dismissed in view of the finding given in RCOP.No.1896/2003. The respondent had preferred appeals. Hence, the application is liable to be dismissed with costs.
(3.) AFTER hearing both sides, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority had come to a conclusion of directing the respondent/tenant to pay or deposit a sum of Rs.39,500/- being the rental arrears for the period from 1.6.1999 to 31.12.2005 at the rate of Rs.200/- per month on or before 13.2.2006, failing which, all further proceedings in the said Rent Control Appeal will be stopped and eviction will be ordered against the respondent/tenant. Aggrieved by the said order passed against the respondent/tenant, he had approached this Court by filing the revision. Heard Mr.S.Vadivel, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant and Mr.S.Natarajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord. The status of landlord and tenant has been used in this judgment for convenience.;