Jayaraman and Another vs Joseph Pouvatchy

The petitioners/tenants have preferred the above revision against the order of eviction dated 27.9.2001 made in R.C.A.No.32 of 2001, on the

file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, Pondicherry, evicting the petitioners/tenants from the petition premises, namely, Door No.

429, old No. 207, Bharathi Street, Pondicherry.

The respondent/landlord initiated the eviction proceedings against the revision petitioners/tenants on two grounds, namely, (i) denial of title and

(ii) wilful default in payment of rent from February, 1995.

Admittedly, the petitioners/tenants were paying rent to P.W.I Claudi Mantis for one year till January, 1995. But, thereafter, from February,

1995, the payment of rent was stopped to P.W.I Claudi Marius at the instance of one Mariadassou Xavier. Claiming that there are nine co-owners

to the petition premises, the petitioners/tenants stopped the payment of rent to P.W.I - Claudi Marius, who is admittedly a co-owner to the petition

premises. Accordingly, the payment of rent was stopped to P.W.I - claudi Marius from Febaiary, 1995, nor paid to any other co-owner, nor

deposited before the Rent Control Court, Pondicherry, from February, 1995; but instead, the landlords were asked to get themselves declared as

the competent person entitled to receive the rent. Admittedly, only after the receipt of the notice from the landlords, the petitioners/tenants, after a

period of four years, proposed to deposit the renl before the Rent Control Court, Pondicherry, u/s 9(3) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and

Rent Control) Act, 1969. The learned Appellate Authority, therefore, in paragraphs 14 to 20, in his Order dated 27.9.2001, dealt with the said

grounds in detail and found them bona fide.

Mr. S.Sathia Chandran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in Chithiraivadivu

Ammal Vs. Dr. Moses T. Sundar, and Ramaswamy Pother v. Thiagaraja Chettiar, 1983 (1) MLJ 114, contends that in a case where the tenant

used to make the payment of rent in lump sum, the conduct between the parties should be interpreted in favour of the tenant holding that such

payment will not amount to Wilful default.

In my considered Opinion, the facts of the above decisions will not fit into the facts and circumstances of the instant case, as admittedly, the

defence taken by the respondent/landlord was not that the petitioners/tenants were in the habit of making lump sum payment of rent, but, the

petitionors/tenants wanted the landlords to get themselves declared as to the title of the petition premises.

It is under such circumstances, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, in my considered opinion, had rightly held that the

petitioners/tenants had denied the title of the respondent/landlord over the petition premises and also committed wilful default in payment of rent

from February, 1995.

Hence, finding no merits, the civil revision petition is dismissed, No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.21045 of 2001 is also dismissed.