N. Rathinasamy vs S. Lakshmi

M. Duraiswamy, J.—Aggrieved over the fair and decretal order passed in R.C.A. No.39 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Principal Subordinate Court, Tiruchirapalli, in reversing the fair and decretal order passed in R.C.O.P. No.68 of 2010, on the file of the Rent Controller, II Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchirapalli, the tenant has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.

The petitioner is the tenant and the landlady is the respondent. The landlady filed R.C.O.P. No.68 of 2010 for eviction on the ground of willful default and owner''s occupation. Admittedly the monthly rent was Rs.1,750/-. In the petition, the landlady has stated that the tenant was irregular in paying the monthly rent and that he committed willful default. With regard to owner''s occupation, the landlady has stated that in the month of June 2009, she requested the tenant to vacate the property, since she was in need of her house to settle at Srirangam in the old age to have dharsan of Lord Renganathan and to have a peaceful life. Since the tenant did not vacate the premises, the landlady has filed the R.C.O.P.

The tenant contended that he has not committed any default in paying the rent and that the landlady is staying with her son at Chennai in their own house. Further the tenant has stated that he also filed a suit in O.S. No.1337 of 2009, on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchirapalli for permanent injunction. According to the tenant, the landlady is not in need of the property.

Before the Rent Controller on the side of the landlady, she was examined as P.W.1 and two documents viz., Exs.P.1 and P.2 were marked and on the side of the respondent, he was examined as R.W.1 and six documents viz., Exs.R.1 to R.6 were marked. The Rent Controller, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidences let in by both the parties, found that the tenant had not committed any default much less willful default in paying the monthly rent to the landlady and also found that the averments stated in the affidavit for eviction on the ground of owner''s occupation is not sufficient to order eviction. On this finding, the Rent Controller dismissed the R.C.O.P.

Aggrieved over the same, the landlady preferred an appeal in R.C.A. No.39 of 2012, on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Principal Subordinate Court, Trichirappalli and the Rent Control Appellate Authority, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidences of both sides, found that the tenant has not proved the payment of rent to the landlady and therefore, committed willful default and also found that the landlady had proved the ground of the owner''s occupation. The Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed the order of Rent Controller and ordered eviction on both the grounds. Against which, the tenant has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.

Heard Mrs.N.Krishnaveni, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.V. Venkataseshan, learned Counsel for the respondent.

On a careful consideration of the materials available on record and the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on either side, it could be seen that the house property belonging to the landlady was let out to the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.1,750/- In paragraph No. 4 of the petition, the landlady has stated that the tenant has to pay the monthly rent on or before 5th of every succeeding calender month. However according to her, the tenant was not in the habit of paying the rent regularly and he is a chronic defaulter in paying the rent. The landlady has not given any details as to the period of default committed by the tenant in the petition. In her evidence, she has admitted that the tenant has been depositing the monthly rent in a Bank in the name of her son. This fact was not averred in the petition filed by her. That apart in the absence of any details with regard to the default committed by the tenant, I am of the view that the eviction cannot be ordered on the ground of willful default, in the absence of any details with regard to the default committed by the tenant. The Rent Control Appellate Authority ought not to have ordered eviction on the ground of willful default. Hence the eviction ordered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority on the ground of willful default is set aside.

So far as the ground of owner''s occupation is concerned, in paragraph No. 6 of the petition, the landlady has stated that she required the house to settle down at Srirangam in her old age to have the Dharsan of Lord Renganathan and to have a peaceful life. At the time of filing of the R.C.O.P, she was 63 years. The tenant has contended that the landlady had settled down at Chennai with her son and she may not require the house for her own occupation. It is the case of the landlady that she was not having any house in Srirangam and she required the house to settle down at Srirangam in her old age to have the Dharsan of Lord Renganathan. Though in his evidence, the tenant has stated that the landlady is having another house in the same area, the said contention was not proved by him by any acceptable evidence. In the absence of any evidence that the landlady is having another house in the same area and that the averment that she required the house to settle down in her old age is understandable and also acceptable.

The Rent Control Appellate Authority, taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidences, rightly ordered eviction on the ground of owner''s occupation. I do not find any error or irregularity in the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority ordering eviction on the ground of owner''s occupation. In these circumstances, the eviction is ordered only on the ground of owner''s occupation. The eviction ordered on the ground of willful default is set aside.

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands partly allowed. Consequently the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/tenant submitted that one year time may be granted to the tenant to vacate and deliver the vacant possession to the landlady. However the learned Counsel for the respondent/landlady submitted that six months time may be granted to the tenant to vacate and hand over the possession to her.

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on either side, I grant nine months'' time to the petitioner/tenant to vacate and deliver the vacant possession to the landlady without driving her to initiate execution proceedings, on condition that the petitioner/tenant shall file an affidavit of undertaking before the Registry on or before 18.12.2014, failing which, the time granted by this Court shall stand cancelled.