Wilful default in paying rent by the tenant not proved.

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgement and decree dated 7.10.1999 rendered in R.C.A.No.3 of 1994 by the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Trichy thereby setting aside the fair and decreral order dated 30.11.1993 rendered in R.C.O.P.No.168 of 1986 by the Court of the Rent Controller (II Additional District Judge), Trichy.

2. Tracing the history of the above civil revision petition having come to be filed, it comes to be known that the petitioners/landlords herein have filed R.C.O.P.No.168 of 1986 before the Court Rent Controller (II Additional District Judge),Trichy for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and also for owner's occupation and the above RCOP was allowed, further granting two months time was for eviction. Aggrieved by the said order of eviction, the respondent-tenant preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.3 of 1994 on the file of the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Trichy praying to set aside the order of eviction and the learned Appellate Authority(Principal Subordinate Judge)Trichy allowed the appeal setting aside the order of eviction and dismissing the eviction petition with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/landlords have come forward to file the above civil revision petition on certain grounds as brought forth in the grounds of revision such as that the learned appellate authority had failed to appreciate that there is no proof that the tenant had paid the rents from December, 1984 and the finding of the court below that the issuance of legal notice and money order would establish that there is no default is perverse; that the court below should have seen that the refused money order despatched by the tenant is for the period from July, 1985 onwards; that it is not open to the tenant to despatch the rent for any particular month; that the learned Judge should have seen that the allegation made in Exs.B6 and B7 are grossly irregular and unjustifiable; that the lower appellate court should have seen that the judgement in 1997 II Law Weekly 181 would have no application to the facts of the case; that the learned Judge should have seen that the document under Ex.B6 had not been proved; that the conclusion of the learned Appellate Authority that the landlord is having excess amounts is not substantiated and in any event deserves to be rejected. Hence, the present civil revision petition.

3. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the the petitioners besides tracing the facts and circumstances of the case as to how the present petitioners/landlords initiated the rent control proceeding before the Rent Controller on grounds of default in payment of the monthly rent and for owner's occupation and how the Rent Controller decided it in favour of the landlords thereby allowing the petition and directing the tenant to vacate the premises and hand over vacant possession and that the appellate authority on appeal allowed the same on both grounds as a result of which the landlords have come forward to file the above Civil Revision Petition. To substantiate his case, the learned counsel would also cite a judgement reported in 1999(I) CTC 221 (T. EASWARA RAO VS. N.E. ANSARI (DECD) AND SIX OTHERS) and would pray to allow the above Civil Revision Petition.

4. In reply, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/tenant besides factually dealing with the subject would cite a judgement reported in 1996(II) CTC 78 (K. NARASIMHARAO VS. T.M. NASIMUDDIN AHMED) and would ultimately pray to dismiss the above Civil Revision Petition.

5. In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to the materials placed on record particularly the fair and decretal order of the Rent Controller and the Judgment and decree of the Appellate Authority and upon hearing the learned counsel for both what could be assessed from the above facts is that it is a Rent Control proceeding initiated by the landlords/petitioners herein seeking eviction