- (1.) THE revision petitioner is the respondent/tenant and the first respondent is the petitioner/landlord before both the courts below.
(2.) THIS civil revision petition is filed as against the judgment and decree dated 24.3.1998 passed in R.C.A.No.836 of 1994 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras confirming the fair and decretal order passed on 6.9.1994 in R.C.O.P.No.3143 of 1992 on the file of the XI Judge, Court of Small Causes at Madras. The deceased first respondent/landlord died during the pendency of this revision petition and his legal representatives were brought on record as per order dated 15.10.1998 in C.M.P.No.14298 of 1998. The deceased first respondent/landlord filed an application against the revision petitioner/tenant under Sec.10(2)(i) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 for eviction of the revision petitioner/tenant from the building in question on the ground of wilful default in payment of monthly rent of Rs.120 excluding the electricity charges from 1.7.1987 till the date of the filing of the R.C.O.P.No.3143 of 1992 before the Rent Control Court in November, 1992. It is the case of the deceased first respondent/landlord in his petition for eviction that he purchased the building in question from one Koteeswari Ammal and others under a registered sale deed dated 13.7.1987 and on the very date itself the first respondent landlord issued a notice on 13.7.1987 to the revision petitioner/ tenant informing him about the purchase of the petition mentioned property and to pay the monthly rent to him from 1.7.1987, and the previous owner of the building in dispute viz., Koteeswari Ammal also gave a notice on 13.7.1987 to the revision petitioner/ tenant confirming the same in favour of the landlord, who is the deceased first respondent, and so the revision petitioner/ tenant was liable to pay the rent to the landlord from 1.7.1987 onwards till 31.9.1992 and the revision petitioner tenant has committed wilful default in payment of the same, and the revision petitioner/ tenant is liable to be evicted. The revision petitioner/ tenant filed a counter before the Rent Control Court stating that the entire rent for the period from 1.7.1987 to 31.9.1992 were deposited every month into the court under the orders of the Rent Control Court in R.C.O.P.No.194 of 1984, and there is no default much less wilful default, and the deceased first respondent/ tenant can come on record as a party to the earlier R.C.O.P.No.194 of 1984 and draw the amount deposited by the revision petitioner/ tenant towards the rent payable by him, and the revision petitioner/ tenant has requested the deceased first respondent to furnish the copy of the sale deed, but he did not oblige, and therefore the rent from 1.7.1987 till 31.9.1992 are available in court deposit, and it is not a default at all, and hence the application for eviction is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) ON the above pleadings and after considering the oral and documentary evidence placed before him, the learned Rent Controller viz., XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras allowed the application for eviction in R.C.O.P.No.3143 of 1992 with costs directing the revision petitioner/ tenant herein to vacate and deliver possession of the petitioner mentioned building within two months. Aggrieved against the said findings of the Rent Controller, the revision petitioner/ tenant filed an appeal in R.C.A.No.836 of 1994 and the learned appellate authority viz., VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras also came to the very same conclusions that the revision petitioner/ tenant herein has committed wilful default in payment of rent, and so he dismissed the appeal with costs, confirming that fair and decretal order passed by the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.3143 of 1992. Not satisfied with the concurrent findings of both the courts below, the revision petitioner/ tenant has come forward with the present revision questioning the findings of both the courts below. ;