The main legal point established is that wilful default by a tenant, as evidenced by unilateral reduction of rent payments and unfounded claims, justifies eviction under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960.

(Revision Petition filed against the judgment dated 19.10.2005, in R.C.A.No.1/2005 on the file of the Appellate Authority (Sub-Court) Poonamallee confirming the order in R.C.O.P.No.22/2000, dated 24.9.2004 on the file of the Court of Rent Controller (District Munsif), Ambattur.)

This Revision has been filed under Sec.25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter called 'the Act') against the judgment dated 19.10.2005 made in RCA No.1/2005 on the file of the Appellate Authority, (Sub-Court) Poonamallee, confirming the order dated 24.9.2004 made in R.C.O.P.No.22/2000 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Ambattur.

2. The unsuccessful tenant before both the authorities below has filed the above revision petition. The respondent/landlord filed RCOP No.22/2000 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Ambattur praying for an order of eviction under Sec.10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(b) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act.

3. The Rent Controller by order dated 24.9.2004 ordered eviction on the ground of wilful default and owner's occupation and dismissed the RCOP on the ground of different use by the tenant. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant filed RCA No.1/2005 and the Appellate Authority by order dated 19.10.2005 dismissed the same thereby confirmed the order of the Rent Controller. Challenging the concurrent judgments, the above revision petition has been filed by the tenant.

4. The respondent/landlord is the absolute owner of the ground floor flat bearing Door No.45/7, Shanthiniketan Colony, Anna Nagar Western Extension, Chennai.600 101. The petitioner and the respondent herein entered into a lease agreement on 28.8.1996, according to which, the tenant agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,600/- p.m towards rent and a sum of Rs.2,000/- p.m towards amenities. Thus the total monthly rent payable by the tenant is Rs.3,600/-. A sum of Rs.21,600/- has been paid by the tenant as advance. The relationship between the parties got strained resulting in the tenant sending a letter dated 28.12.1999 informing the landlord that he would be sending a sum of Rs.1,600/- only from December 1999, as the promised amenities were not provided by the landlord. The tenant further informed in the above letter that he had paid a sum of Rs.2,000/- every month in excess during the past three years and therefore the excess amount paid towards the amenities should be refunded by the landlord. The landlord sent a legal notice dated 12.2.2000 claiming arrears of rent not only at the admitted rate of Rs.3,600/- but also on the basis of the proposed enhancement as stated in the agreement. He claimed arrears and the payment of rent from the ;month of August 1997 to January 1999 and also March 1999 to February 2000. He further informed the tenant that he wanted the property for his own use and occupation and blamed the tenant for using the property for non-residential purpose, even though it was let out for residential purpose. The petitioner/tenant sent a reply dated 27.2.2000 claiming that a sum of Rs.78,000/- was paid by him as an excess amount towards the amenities and an excess advance amount of Rs.20,000/- held by the respondent/landlord. In such circumstances, the petitioner/tenant called upon the respondent/landlord to return the excess amount of Rs.98,000/- (78,000 + 20,000) and till such time adjust the excess amount held at the rate of Rs.1,600/- per month from the month of January onwards. After sending a reply dated 15.3.2000 the respondent/landlord filed the RCOP as stated above.

5. The Rent Controller after evaluating the evidence held that having accepted to pay a sum of Rs.3,600/- per month by entering into a lease agreement, the petitioner/tenant cannot be permitted to say that he is entitled to pay only a sum of Rs.1,600/-per month and the alleged excess amount paid by him in the past towards amenities should be adjusted in the future rents. While rejecting the petition on the ground that the property was used for some