A tenant's failure to pay rents for a long period of time, coupled with continued default during the pendency of rent control proceedings, constitutes wilful default, justifying eviction.

J. ESWARA PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER is the tenant in a residential premises. The tenancy is oral, and the rent is Rs. 150/- per month. The respondent landlord filed RCC No. 3/1989 before the Principal District Munsif (Rent Controller), Punganur for eviction of the petitioner on four grounds, viz. , that he bona fide requires the premises for personal occupation, that the petitioner committed wilful defaultin payment of rents from Junly, 1986 to June, 1988, that the petitioner committed some acts of waste and that the petitioner had secured alternative accommodation, the learned Rent Controller negatived all the contentions except the contention relating to wilful default in payment of rents and directed eviction of the petitioner. On appeal by the petitioner, the appellate authority agreed with the Rent Controller that there was wilful default in payment of rents and confirmed the Order of eviction leading to filing of this Revision Petition by the tenant.

( 2 ) BEFORE the Rent Controller, the petitioner fued an additional counter to the effect that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the petition for eviction is filed within 10 years from the date of completion of the construction of the premises in question, basing on G. O. Ms. No. 636, GAD ( Accomodation - A) dated 29-12-1983. The learned Rent Controller found that the period of 10 years has elapsed from the date of occupation of the premises in question before the filing of the petition fareviction on 1-5-1989.

( 3 ) BEFORE the appellate authority, the petitioner has not raised the ground relating to the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller, and the appellate authority had no occasion to deal with the said objection. In the Revision Petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised the question of jurisdiction and contended that the evidence of the respondent himself reveals that the 10 years period did not elapse before the filing of the petition for eviction. The learned Rent Controller relied on Ex. B-5 which is an affidavit of the petitioner dated 30-5-1988, wherein it is stated that for the past 9 years he was the tenant in the premises. Based on the said admission, the learned Rent Controller held that the period of more than 10 years had elapsed before the petition for eviction was filed on 1-5-1989, This being a finding of fact, should have been questioned , before the appellate authority which is the appropriate forum to go into the said question of fact. The petitioner did not choose to raise the ground relating to jurisdiction before the appellate authority.

( 4 ) IN Rajagopal Vandaiyar and Sons vs. Joseph Nadar it was held that the plea raised before the Rent Controller but abandoned before the appellate authority cannot be allowed to be raised again in revision. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. T. Mohd. Raisuli Hassan it was held that the finding of the trial Court which is not challenged before the Appellate Court cannot be permitted to be raised in the Second Appeal. The question of lack of jurisdiction is a question of fact that has to be decided on evidence. In the explanation to G. O. Ms. No. 636 dated 29-12-1983, for the purpose of Clause A of the said G. O. , the construction of the building shall be deemed to have been completed on the date on which the completion therefor is reported to or otherwise recorded by the local authority having jurisdiction, and in the absence of any such report or record, the date on which it is actually occupied (not including occupation merely for the purpose of supervising the construction or guarding the building under construction) for the first time. So, it was open to the respondent to show to the Court the date on which the premises in questions was actually occupied. Though there was no record of completion of construction of the building, the date of actual occupation was made out by the respondent and the Rent Controller found that the actual date of occupation was beyond 10 years from

Click Here to Read the rest of this document