Mrs. M. Anitha Devi vs Mr. A. Govindarajan

K. Mohan Ram, J.—The Petitioner, who is the owner and landlady of the petition premises, filed RCOP. No. 19 of 2001 on the file of the

Rent Controller (District Munsif Court), Tiruvarur seeking eviction of the Respondent on the ground that he has committed wilful default in payment

of rents and that the petition premises is required for additional accommodation. Learned Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition on the

ground that the Respondent has committed wilful default in payment of rents, while rejecting the claim of the Petitioner u/s 10(3)(c) of the

Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

Being aggrieved by that, the Respondent herein preferred an appeal in RCA. No. 3 of 2004 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority

(Subordinate Court), Tiruvaur. The Rent Control Appellate Authrority allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent herein. Being aggrieved by that,

the Petitioner is before this Court.

Though the Respondent has been served and his name shown in the cause list, he has appeared neither in person nor through counsel. Hence,

the above civil revision petition is being disposed of on merits.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the rent for the petition premises is Rs. 750/-per month and the Respondent had committed

default in the payment of rent for the period from May 1997 to October 1999. Learned Counsel submitted that the case of the Respondent was

that for the receipt of rent, the landlady was not in the habit of issuing receipts, but the Respondent was maintaining a book wherein the details of

rent paid have bee noted.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that it was also the case of the Respondent that as the vendor of the Petitioner had

informed him that he had sold the property to the Petitioner herein, he was paying the rent from May 1997 up to October 1999. Since the

Petitioner refused to receive the rent from November 1999, the Respondent filed a petition u/s 8(5) of the said Act in RCOP. No. 8 of 2000. That

petition was ordered and accordingly, he was depositing the rent into the Court. But, in RCOP. No. 8 of 2000, the alleged default was not gone

into. It was further contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondent that since the sale deed in favour of the Petitioner had been registered

only on 28.7.1999, the Petitioner cannot claim that she had purchased the property in May 1997.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the Rent Controller, on a consideration of the evidence of RW1 and RW2 and ExR19

to ExR46, has observed that it is the evidence of RW2 that the Petitioner herein refused to receive the rent. But, he had not taken any steps to file

any petition u/s 8 of the said Act and no explanation has been given as to why such a petition was not filed. Further, the learned Rent Controller

has disbelieved the evidence of RW1 and RW2 that though the Petitioner - landlady has refused to receive the rent and also refused to issue

receipts, still the tenant has claimed that he had paid the rent for about 30 months. The learned Rent Controller had not relied upon ExR19 to

ExR46, as those exhibits have been written in pencil, which raises a doubt regarding their genuineness. The learned Rent Controller observed that

they are self serving documents, which have been created by the tenant. For the aforesaid reasons and after finding out that there are contradictions

in the evidence of RW1 to RW3, the learned Rent Controller disbelieved the evidence of RW3. When the Rent Controller has recorded

acceptable reasons, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has erred in reversing the findings of the Rent Controller.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the Rent Control Appellate Authority has accepted the account books produced by

the tenant only on the ground that those account books were produced before the Income Tax Authorities and in token of their inspection, they

have affixed their department seal and further observed that those account books have been maintained in the usual course of business and the

person, who has maintained the account book namely RW2 has been examined and as such, there is no reason to suspect the genuineness of the

account books. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the oral evidence available on record has not been considered. Further

according to the learned Counsel, while RW1 has stated that the rents were being paid regularly i.e month after month, RW2 stated that since the

Petitioner - landlady had refused to receive the rent, it was being paid after two or three months and when the rent was paid after two or three

months, the Petitioner had received the same, which, according to the learned Counsel, is a material contradiction, which has not been considered

by the Rent Control Appellate Authority.

I have considered the aforesaid submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

The Rent Controller has observed that RW2 has deposed that the Petitioner - landlady has refused to receive the rent and hence, the tenant

should have immediately invoked Section 8 of the said Act and filed a petition for deposit of rent and for not filing such a petition, there is no

explanation. The Rent Controller has further observed that when the Petitioner - landlady refused to receive the rent and issue receipts, it is

unbelievable that thereafter, she had accepted the rents paid by the tenant. The Rent Controller has rejected the account books produced by the

tenant on the ground that the entries have been made in pencil in the account books. The Rent Controller further observed that the account books

produced by the tenant have been created by him and they are self serving documents and that therefore, they cannot be accepted.

However, the Rent Controller Appellate Authority has considered each and every one of the documents, namely ExR11 to ExR46 and has

given elaborate reasons for accepting the same. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, on a consideration of the evidence of RW1 to RW3, has

observed that the account books maintained by the tenant wherein the entries relating to payment of rents in pencil have been produced before the

Income Tax Authorities and the seal of the Income Tax Authorities have been affixed and therefore, has come to the conclusion that the accounts

have been maintained in the usual course of business and there is no reason to suspect their genuineness. Further, the Rent Control Appellate

Authority has observed that RW2, who had written and maintained the daily ledgers and books have been examined as a witness before the Rent

Controller. Simply because the entries have been made in pencil, that cannot be a ground for rejecting the accounts. The Rent Control Appellate

Authority has further observed that a perusal of the account books shows that the rents have been paid at times towards two months and at times

towards three months and if, as contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the accounts have been created for the purpose of this case,

the tenant would have mentioned in the accounts as if the rents have been paid regularly month by month. That itself would show that the accounts

have not been created for the purpose of this case. The said reasoning cannot be said to be erroneous.

The Rent Control Appellate Authority has also relied upon the decision in the case of R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arulmigu

Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple and Another, wherein it has been held as follows:

Ledger books maintained by the father of Appellant and thereafter by him were produced in Court and they bore the seal of Income Tax

Department. High Court erred in ruling out the books from consideration on the ground that the same were not maintained or were not proved in

the absence of the maker having stepped in the witness box.

The said decision is squarely applicable to the facts of this case and therefore, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has rightly accepted the

accounts produced by the tenant and has rightly come to the conclusion that the tenant has paid the rents and there is no default, much less any

wilful default. I do not find any error in the said reasoning of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Simply because there are some minor

contradictions in the evidence of RW1 and RW2, that cannot be a ground to reject ExR11 to ExR46. Therefore, the contentions of the learned

Counsel for the Petitioner cannot be countenanced.

For the aforesaid reasons, the above civil revision petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.