Presumption of wilful default.

(This revision is preferred under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended by Act XXIII of 1973 & Act, 1980 against the decree and judgment made in RCA No.6/98 dated 7.1.2002 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum- Principal Sub Court, Nagercoil confirming the decree and judgment made in RCOP No.55 of 1984 dated 20.1.1998 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-District Munsif Court, Nagercoil.)

The tenants are the revision petitioners.

2. The respondent/landlord moved the Rent Controller in RCOP No.55 of 1984, for eviction of the tenants on the grounds, that the defendants have committed willful default in payment of rent, that the tenants used the building for the purpose other than that for which it was leased, that the tenants have committed acts of waste, that the tenants are guilty of such act and conduct, which are nuisance to the occupier, that the building being a residential one, it is required for the occupation of the grandson, since the family is not owning any other residential building in the town and that the building is bone fide required for the immediate purpose of demolition for the purpose of erecting a new building, invoking Sections 10(2)(i)-Wilful default, 10(2)(ii)(b)-different user, 10(2)(iii)- Acts of waste, 10(2)(v)-nuisance, 10(3)a(i)-own use and 14(i)(b)-demolition and reconstruction; of Act XVIII of 1960 i.e. the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act, hereinafter called Act.

3. The revision petitioners/tenants denying all the allegations and the reasons assigned for eviction, including willful default, opposed the eviction petition, further contenting that the averments made in the petition are imaginary.

4. The learned Rent Controller, after recording evidence, assessing the same, by formulating necessary points, had decided the case. The assessment, as claimed by the Rent Controller, in its proper perspective, brought to surface, willful default, the building was used for some other purpose and the building is bona fide required by the landlord for immediate demolition for the purpose of erection of new building and the evidence failed to make out the other grounds for eviction. Thus, on the three grounds, eviction order was passed on 20.1.1998, which was challenged by the tenants, in RCA No.6 of 1998 before the Appellate Authority.

5. The Appellate Authority, concurring with the findings rendered by the Rent Controller, for ordering eviction, found fault in not accepting certain other grounds pleaded by the landlord, for eviction. The assessment of evidence, based on pleadings by the Appellate Authority, brought to surface, according to him, that the defendants had committed acts of waste and that the landlord also requires the building for personal occupation. Thus, concurring with the order of eviction, further invoking other grounds also, the Appellate Authority ordered eviction, confirming the findings of the Rent Controller, as per judgment, dated 7.1.2002, which is sought to be assailed in this revision.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted, that both the courts below have not only failed to see the pleadings of the parties, but also failed to assess the evidence from its proper perspective, thereby rendered more or less perverse findings and in this view, interference of this court is must, though concurrent findings were given, with respect to three grounds. In support of the above submission, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners took me through the pleadings, as well as the findings and the result, which I will discuss infra.

8. In response to the above submission, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord would submit that though the Rent controller had ordered eviction on three grounds, he failed to accept the other three grounds, which were properly appreciated and accepted by