K. Rajan vs K. Jagadheeswari

A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.—Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and also the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

This revision has been directed against the Judgment in R.C.A. No. 1183 of 2006 on the file of VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai which had arisen out of an order of eviction in R.C.O.P. No. 431 of 2006 on the file of XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, an application filed u/s 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1860 (hereinafter referred to "Act").

According to the respondent/landlord, the tenant/revision petitioner herein was inducted into the tenancy for a monthly rent of Rs. 1200/- for the petition schedule premises in the year 1984 and that the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent for a period of 42 months starting from 1.8.2002 till 1.1.2006 amounting to Rs. 50,400/-. The defence put forth by the tenant in his counter is that he had put up the superstructure in the first floor by spending Rs. 2,00,000/- and that he had not committed any wilful default in payment of rent. Before the learned Rent Controller, the petitioner/tenant has examined himself as P.W.1 and exhibited Exs P1 to P3 and on the side of the respondent/landlord, the respondent had examined herself as R.W.1 and Exs R1 and R2 were marked. After going through the evidence both oral and documentary, the learned Rent Controller has come to a conclusion that the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent and, there was absolutely no evidence on the side of the tenant to prove that he had put up the first floor by spending Rs. 2,00,000/-, had allowed the R.C.O.P. giving two months time for the tenant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the petition schedule premises to the landlord.

Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Rent Controller, the tenant had preferred an appeal in RCA. No. 1183 of 2006 before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, who finding no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Rent Controller had dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No. 431 of 2006 which necessitated the tenant to approach this Court with this revision.

When the matter was taken up today, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is not in a position to produce any evidence not even a scrap of papers to show that the tenant had obtained sanction plan at least for putting up the first floor. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the findings of the Courts below are perverse or they failed to consider the evidence already let in in R.C.O.P. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below in arriving at a conclusion that the tenant/revision petitioner herein had committed wilful default in payment of rent for the petition schedule premises.

At this juncture the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord represents that the landlord is willing to give six months time for the revision petitioner/tenant to vacate the premises.

In fine, this civil revision petition is dismissed confirming the Judgment of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No. 1183 of 2006 on the file of VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. Six months time from today is given to the tenant to vacate the petition schedule premises and hand over the vacant possession to the landlord. Affidavit of undertaking is to be filed by the tenant within ten days. No costs. Connected M.P. No. 1 of 2009 is also dismissed.