- (1.) The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 03.04.2013 in R.C.A.No.471 of 2011 confirmed by the fair and decreetal order dated 19.04.2011 in R.C.O.P.No.82 of 2008 on the file of the XV Small Causes Court, Chennai.
(2.) The admitted facts are as follows: (i) The revision petitioner herein is the tenant and the respondent herein is the landlord. For our convenience, hereinafter they are called as tenant and landlord. The landlord filed a petition in R.C.O.P.No.82 of 2008 for eviction on the ground of wilful default and additional accommodation. The tenancy is also admitted by both sides. After due enquiry, the Rent Controller ordered eviction only on the ground of wilful default and dismissed the landlord's claim in respect of additional accommodation, against which, the tenant as an appellant filed R.C.A.No.471 of 2011 questioning eviction order on the ground of wilful default. The landlord also filed R.C.A.No.431 of 2011 for challenging the order passed by the Rent Controller in respect of additional accommodation. The Appellate Authority have taken both R.C.A. and pronounced common judgment confirming the order passed by the Rent Controller. So the eviction order on the ground of wilful default has been upheld. (ii) Against the dismissal order passed in R.C.A.No.431 of 2011, which was filed by the landlord in respect of additional accommodation, no revision has been preferred. But the revision petitioner/tenant has preferred this revision challenging the order passed by both the Courts below.
(3.) Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant has advanced his arguments in two limbs; (i) There is no default in payment of rent, even if the Court comes to the conclusion that default is not wilful; (ii) Once the petitioner has paid the rent by way of D.D., after deducting TDS, the same has been given credit to May 2006 onwards. So there is no cause of action for filing R.C.O.P. To substantiate his arguments, he relied upon the following decisions: (i) S.Sundaram Pillai v. V.R.Pattabiraman, 1985 AIR(SC) 582; (ii) M/S.Chordia Automobiles v. S.Moosa and others, 2000 AIR(SC) 1880; (iii) P.M.Punnoose v. K.M.Munneruddin and others, 2003 10 SCC 610; (iv) Raja Muthukone (dead) by lrs. v. T.Gopalasami and another, 2002 4 SCC 204; (v) T.S.Rajagopal v. M.N.Saraswathi Ammal,1990 LW 26; (vi) Karra Kondamma v. Karra Nagamma, 1994 1 MadLJ 516; (vii) S.R.Sivasubramaniam and six others v. N.Rajagopal, 1999 1 MadLJ 56; (viii) Chandrasekar v. M.Lalitha, 2010 7 MadLJ 348; (ix) S.Venkataramanswami Ayyar v. S.Abdul Wahab, 1969 1 MadLJ 137; (x) C.Chandramohan v. Sengottaiyan (dead) by legal heirs and others, 2000 1 CTC 239;;