The landlord's freedom in choosing the place for own use and occupation and the tenant's obligation to follow the prescribed procedure for rent deposit.

(PRAYER: Revision filed against the Judgment dated 17.12.2004, made in R.C.A.No.5/2004 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, confirming the Judgment and Decree in R.C.O.P.No.17/1999, on the file of the Rent Controller, (DMC) Nagercoil.)

This Revision Petition is preferred against the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Principal Sub Judge Nagercoil, made in R.C.A.No.5/2004, confirming the order of the Rent Controller/Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil in R.C.O.P.No.17/1999, ordering eviction under Section 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act (in short, the Act). The Tenant is the Revision Petitioner.

2.For convenience, the parties are referred to their original rank in Rent Control Petition.

3.The demised premises relates to NMC 28/3-141, New No.51/1, 141/1, Nagercoil. The Respondent has become a tenant under the Petitioner/Landlord pursuant to a Lease Agreement. At the time of Agreement of Lease, the rate of rent per month was Rs.225/-. Subsequently on 31.08.1995, a fresh Lease Agreement was entered into between the Petitioner and the Respondent and the rate of interest was increased from Rs.225/- to Rs.275/-. There was an earlier advance of Rs.3,000/- and further advance of Rs.2,000/- was paid on 31.08.1995. Thus, a total advance that the Petitioner gave is Rs.5000/-. The Petitioner/Landlord has alleged that the Respondent has paid the rent only up to June 1998 and therefore, the Respondent had committed wilful default in payment of rent. At the time of filing the Petition, the Respondent was in arrears of rent for nine months. The Respondent had tendered the Money Order for lesser amount without covering the whole arrears of rent. Hence the same was returned by the Petitioner. The Petitioner is an unemployed person. The building is required for his own use and for carrying on grocery business in the shop, which is situated in the busy locality. Hence, the Petition for eviction was filed on the ground of wilful default under Section 10(2)(i) of the Act and for own use and occupation under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.

4.Resisting the application, admitting the tenancy and the monthly rent of Rs.275/-, the Respondent/Tenant has filed the Counter statement contending that the Landlord has received an advance of Rs.5000/-. Even prior to the filing of the Petition, the rent was tendered by way of Money Order and the Landlord refused to receive the same. Hence the Respondent/Tenant had sent the Legal Notice, requesting the Landlord to inform the Bank Account Number. Under Ex.B-4 – Notice, the Petitioner/Landlord sent a Reply Notice without specifying the name of the Bank. Hence the Respondent has opened an Account in Kanyakumari District Central Cooperative Bank and continued to deposit rent in the Bank Account. Evenafter filing of the Rent Control Petition, the Tenant continued to deposit rent in the separate Bank Account and later deposited the same before the Court. Hence, there is no wilful default. On the ground of own use and occupation for running the grocery shop, the Tenant has filed the counter statement alleging that the Petition premises is not suitable for running the provisions stores, since it is located in the midst of schools, hardware shops and marriage hall.

5.In consideration of the evidence, the Rent Controller found that from August 1998, the Respondent/Tenant has not paid the rent till the disposal of the Petition. It was further held that the advance amount of Rs.5000/- was only an advance and the same would not be sufficient towards the rental arrears. On the ground of bonafide requirement for the running of grocery shop, it was found that the Petitioner/Landlord has established his bonafide requirement for own use and occupation and it is not for the tenant to dictate the terms as to whether the Petitioner/Landlord should run his provisional store or not.

6.Confirming the findings of the Rent Controller, the Appellate A