- (1.)ANIMADVERTING upon the common judgment and decrees dated 17.02.2012 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, (Rent Control Appellate Authority), Vellore, in R.C.A.Nos.10/2007, 12 of 2007 and 2 of 2008 in (i) reversing the fair and decreetal order dated 05.04.2007 in RCOP No.36 of 1999, (ii) partly allowing the order and decree dated 05.04.2007 in RCOP No.36 of 1999 and (iii) confirming the order and decree dated 05.04.2007 in RCOP No.85 of 1999 respectively passed by the learned Principal District Munsif (Rent Controller), Vellore these three civil revision petitions have been focussed by the tenant.
(2.)A thumbnail sketch of the germane facts, in a few broad strokes can be encapsulated thus:
(i) The first respondent-Raghunathlal/the landlord filed the RCOP No.36 of 1999 seeking eviction of the revision petitioner/tenant on the grounds of willful default, sub-letting, different user and act of waste by invoking Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(a), 10(2)(ii)(b) and 10(2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short). The matter was contested. (ii) Whereas the revision petitioner/tenant filed the RCOP No.85 of 1999 under Section 8(5) of the Act seeking permission to deposit the rent in court. (iii) The matter was resisted. (iii) During the joint enquiry, on the side of the first respondent/landlord, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On the side of the revision petitioner/tenant, R.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B1 to B9 were marked. (iv) Ultimately, the Rent controller allowed the RCOP No.36 of 1999 filed by the landlord and gave a finding to the effect that there was willful default in paying the rent in favour of the landlord and that the tenant also sub-let the premises for textile shop even though the tenancy was in favour of the tenant for running his shroff business. The other two grounds, viz., different user and act of waste were held to be not proved. (v) The Rent Controller also dismissed the RCOP No.85 of 1999 filed by the revision petitioner/tenant for deposit of rent in court on the ground of technicalities. (vi) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the orders of the Rent Controller, the tenant preferred two appeals in RCA.Nos.10 of 2007 and 2 of 2008 and the landlord preferred RCA No.12 of 2007 being aggrieved by the dismissal of the RCOP on the ground of different user and act of waste. (vii) All the three RCAs were heard together and ultimately, the Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the appeals filed by the tenant and partly allowed the appeal in RCA No.12 of 2007 filed by the landlord on the ground of different user and rejected the ground of act of waste. (viii) Challenging and impugning the orders of both the courts below, these three revisions have been filed by the tenant on various grounds.

Heard both sides.

At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the first respondent/landlord would fittingly and appropriately raise the point that ever since the time of filing of the RCOP, the admitted rents were not paid and that itself would disentitle the tenant from prosecuting his case before this court.

(3.)THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant would not venture to say anything that the statement as putforth on the side of the landlord relating to non-payment of rent pendente lite was wrong.
It is therefore crystal clear that such non-payment of rent would attract eviction.