- (1.) C. R. P. No. 308 of 1997 arises from R. C. O. P. No. 193 of 1990 and C. R. P. No. 309 of 1997 arises from R. C. O. P. No. 200 of 1990. Both these proceedings were clubbed together by the Rent Controller and a common order was pronounced. When appeals were preferred, the appellate authority also disposed of the appeals by a common judgment.
(2.) IN both the revisions, tenant is the revision petitioner. R. C. O. P. No. 193 of 1990 was filed by the tenant under sec. 8 (5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. seeking permission from Rent Controller for depositing the rent of Rs. 8,180 due to the respondent for the period ending with 31. 7. 1990 and permit him to continue to deposit future rents. Material averments in that petition may be stated as follows: There are three respondents. All of them are landlords of the building. They arc sons of one late Narahari Rao. Under a lease arrangement dated 22. 11. 1974. petitioner herein took the building on a monthly rent of rs. 750. It is averred that an advance amount of Rs. 5,000 was paid. Thereafter the rent was enhanced to Rs. 1,800. The arrangement in respect of such enhancement was oral, and the tenancy was according to English calendar month. From the very beginning, the tenant is running' Alankar Ribbon Stall' in the schedule premises. Initially the first respondent was collecting the rent, and subsequently, he directed the rent to be paid to the three respondents in proportion of Rs. 600. It is further averred that it was the habit of landlords to take loan from the tenant, and huge amount is due to him from the landlords. Upto 21. 3. 1990 the first respondent has received the rent second respondent has received the rent upto 31. 3. 1990 and third respondent has received the rent upto 31. 1. 1990. Thereafter, the allegation in the petition is that without any reason the landlords refused to receive the rent. Therefore, the tenant began to send the rent in equal shares to all the three respondents either by demand draft or by-cheque. It is further averred that for the tenancy month of february, 1990, a demand draft was sent to the respondents towards their share after deducting the loan amount which they had borrowed. Before issuing the demand drafts towards rent, the petitioner sent a lawyer's notice to all the respondents. It is seen that all the cheques and demand drafts sent by the petitioner were refused to be accepted. In paragraph 4 of the petition, petitioner has calculated the rent due to each and every respondent from 1st January, 1990 till 31. 7. 1990. An amount of Rs. 4,200 is due of Rs. 2,400 is due the respondent No. 2 by way of four months rent from 1. 4. 1990 to 31. 7. 1990. A sum of Rs. 1,580 is due to the third respondent for the tenancy month of February, 1990 and March. 1990 and for the period commencing from 1. 7. 1990 to 31. 7. 1990. According to the tenant, the total amount payable to the landlords is Rs. 8,180. He has averred that he was very regular in paying the rent, and there was no justification for landlords to decline to receive the rent. A registered notice was sent on 21. 3. 1990 along with a demand draft, but the same was refused to be accepted. Even before that, a lawyer's notice was issued. That was also refused to be accepted. According to petitioner, under such circumstances, he had no other alternative except to approach the court, seeking permission to deposit the rent. The same was seriously opposed by the landlords. According to them, the tenant has not complied with the conditions under Sec. 8 of the Rent Control Act. It is only when the landlords themselves have filed a petition for eviction, apprehending that he will be evicted on the ground that he is a wilful defaulter, he has sought permission of court to deposit the rent into court, under Sec 8 (5) of the Rent Control Act. According to them, rent from November, 1980 is in arrears. There is no proper deposit or tender.
(3.) ALL the three respondents in R. C. O. P. No. 193 of 1990 (landlords) filed R. C. O. P. No. 200 of 1990, for eviction of the tenant on three grounds: viz. , (l) That he has defaulted in payment of rent from November. 1989 to July. 1990. A total amount of Rs. 16,200 is due. The default is wilful. (2)The tenant has sub-let the building to one Jalal who is carrying on business in the schedule building. The same is unauthorised and without written consent. (3) The first respondent is an advocate. He has his office in the first floor of the building. He is a heart-patient. He is also suffering from high blood-pressure. Doctors have advised him not to climb staircase. He has no other residential building of his own in the Town. So, for purpose of conducting advocate's office, he requires the schedule building. To the eviction petition, a detailed counter was filed by the tenant alleging that he has not sub-let the building and he alone is doing business. The person who has been impleaded as sub-tenant, i. e. . second respondent in R. C. O. P. No. 200 of 1990. is none other than his son, who is also helping him in his business, and he (1st respondent) is having full control over the business. The alleged sub-lease is only a pretext for eviction. Regarding default in payment of rent, he alleged that he is not a wilful defaulter, and long before the present petition was filed, he has also sought permission of the Rent Controller for depositing rent in court. According to him, the rent alleged to be due as mentioned in the eviction petition is not correct, and those amounts have already been deposited in R. C. O. P. No. 193 of 1990. For the subsequent period, he is continuing to pay the rent in the same court. Insofar as the claim of the landlords that they require the building bona fide for their own occupation is concerned, tenant alleged that the first landlord is having his residence in the second floor of a big building bearing Door No. 6/60, Thomas Park Housing Colony, Race Course, coimbatore. When he has his very house in second floor, to say that he cannot climb first floor to run his advocate's office is lacking in good faith. According to the tenant, the allegation of the first petitioner that he is a heart-patient is not correct. It is further said that the present room occupied by him is more than sufficient for running an advocate's office. Apart from the building in question, he has other buildings also. All the three grounds under which eviction was claimed by the landlords were disputed by the tenant. ;