S.N. Rangaswamy vs S. Muthurama Reddy

Swamikkannu, J.—This is a petition by the tenant questioning the order of the learned appellate authority under the provisions of S. 25 of

the Tamil Nadu Buildings (lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973. An argument had been advanced on behalf of

the tenant revision petitioner herein that when one a suit has been filed for arrears of rent commencing from Sept. 1974 to Oct. 1976 i.e., for a

period of two years and two months, by the landlord, by way of S.C.S. 4657 of 1976 which was decreed on 21-4-1977, a petition on the ground

of default of rent filed under the provisions of the Rent Control Act for a period, though different, commencing from Nov. 1976 to 1978, cannot be

entertained, and, as a matter of fact, held by the learned Rent Controller or the learned appellate authority as one for which period there had been

the commission of wilful default in payment of rent. Mr. Chengalvarayan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, in his interesting argument has

inter alia submitted that as the institution of the suit by the landlord was one for the arrears, but not resorting for that period, to the period, to the

provisions of the special enactment, viz., the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 to be taken in view while considering

the defaulted period alleged viz., from the month of Nov.1976 to Aug.1978. The very fact, that the landlord had not resorted to the relevant

provision of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for the period commencing from Sept. 1974 to Oct. 1976 will show that

there was no animus on the part of the landlord to vacate the tenant revision petitioner herein but it was only for the purpose of recovering the

arrears of rent that originally the landlord had initiated legal proceedings. The learned counsel for the revision petitioned Mr. T.Chengalvartayan,

further submits that when that approach at the first instance will indicate that the further default that had been committed even if a conclusion is to

be arrived at in that direction, will not clothe that default with the characteristic of a wilful default, the phrase ''wilful default'' contemplated by the

special enactment requires some more elements to be present so as to make the revision petitioner herein liable for eviction.

The above contention is resisted by the other side viz., the landlord respondent herein and learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submits

that the institution of a suit for recovery of arrears of rent by the landlord does not absolve him from filing a petition under the provisions of the Rent

Control Act alleging that the default that had been committed for the entirely different period comes within the purview of the phrase ''wilful default.

the contention raised on behalf of the revision petitioner cannot be sustained and cannot be held to be tenable. On the other hand, no proportion of

law can be laid that when once the landlord had resorted to the institution of a suit in a civil court it will absolve him from alleging that a wilful

default has been committed by his tenant by instituting a petition under the provisions of the special enactment. Under these circumstance, this court

finds no merit in the civil revision petition. The civil revision petitions is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Two months time is granted to the

tenant to vacate the premises.

Petition dismissed.