T. Sakthivel vs N. Vijayalakshmi

N. Kirubakaran, J.—This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order and decretal order in RCA No. 375 of 2013 dated 17.03.2014 passed by the IX Judge, Court of Small Causes at Chennai which had confirmed the order by trial court in RCOP No. 1717 of 2012 dated 27.06.2013 passed by the XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

The tenant has come before this Court against the order of eviction on the ground of willful default concurrently by the Rent Controller as well as by the Appellate Authority.

Heard Mr. Subba Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Premkumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord.

The petitioner is the tenant under the respondent in respect of non-residential building. The respondent contended before the Rent Controller that there is a default in the payment of rent from August 2011 to December 2011 stating that the said amount was belatedly paid. Moreover, the petitioner paid the rent from January 2012 to April 2012 belatedly on 29.05.2012. The said petition was contested by the petitioner. After elaborate enquiry, the rent controller found that the rents from the month of May 2012 to July 2012 was paid by the petitioner on 29.10.2012 through Ex.P2 and therefore concluded that the petitioner had not paid the monthly rent in time and only after filing of the rent control petition and after making appearance on 05.10.2012, the arrears of rent were sent by five cheques for the period from May 2012 to September 2012. If really the petitioner wanted to pay the rents promptly, the same would have been paid month wise. As found by the rent controller and confirmed by the Appellate Authority, it is proved that the petitioner failed to pay the monthly rents regularly from May 2012 to September 2012 and it was paid only on 29.10.2012 by way of five cheques. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner committed willful default. The concurrent finding given by the rent controller cannot be disturbed and the order of eviction needs to be confirmed and it is accordingly confirmed.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is doing electrical business and he requires one year time and he has filed an undertaking affidavit to that effect. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposed for grant of one year time to the petitioner. Taking into consideration the long possession of the petitioner, it is appropriate to grant nine (9) months time for the petitioner to evict and handover the possession to the respondent/landlord, i.e. the petitioner shall evict and handover possession directly to the respondent/landlord on or before 31.03.2015. The petitioner shall continue to pay the monthly rent regularly to the landlord and he shall not induct any person or create third party interest. The undertaking affidavit is recorded granting time upto 31.03.2015 for the petitioner to evict and handover the possession to the respondent/landlord.

This Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Call the matter on 02.04.2015 for compliance.