Sale agreement with landlord will not terminate liability of tenant to pay rent.

(Revision Petition filed against the order dated 3.2.2005, made in RCA.No.438/2003 on the file of the VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai confirming the order dated 24.4.2003 made in R.C.O.P.No.454/2001 on the file of the XVI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.)

This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 3.2.2005, made in RCA.No.438/2003 on the file of the VIII Judge, Small Causes Court,Chennai confirming the order dated 24.4.2003 made in R.C.O.P.No.454/2001 on the file of the XVI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

2. The tenant is the revision petitioner.

3. The respondent/landlord filed a petition under Sec.10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter called 'the Act') for evicting the tenant/revision petitioner from the demised premises. It is the case of the respondent/landlord that the property situated at Old Door No.15A, new Door No.32/1, 1st street, Akbarabad, Kodambakkam, Chennai. 24 belongs to him and the revision petitioner/tenant occupied the premises on a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/-, but he failed to remit the rent as agreed upon and consequently he fell into arrears of Rs.34,000/- from September 1999 to February 2001. He did not remit the rent despite the request made by the landlord. Moreover, the landlord has retired from service on superannuation and he would like to settle down in his own house. Therefore he would like to have the property for his own use and occupation. Therefore this RCOP was filed.

4. The said petition was contested by the tenant/revision petitioner stating that he has already deposited a sum of Rs.12,000/- towards advance and for the rental payments, the landlord never used to give receipts. It is also stated by him that he has executed a sale agreement with the landlord on 12.12.1993 for a sum of Rs.5.5 lakhs and also paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards advance. The landlord agreed to receive the balance sale consideration after submitting the original documents to the tenant and therefore the tenant agreed to pay the monthly rents to the landlord until the execution of the sale deed for the purpose of avoiding increase of the sale price.

5. It is the case of the tenant that thereafter the landlord demanded additional sale consideration amount instead of Rs.5.5 lakhs thereby started to dispossess him from the petition schedule premises. Hence the tenant filed O.S.No.7005/2000 for permanent injunction restraining the landlord from interfering with his peaceful possession.

6. It is the further case of the tenant that in November 2000, the landlord requested him to have a fresh sale agreement and he also agreed not to claim any rent thereafter and requested him to pay a sale consideration of Rs.9 lakhs instead of Rs.5.5 lakhs. Accordingly a fresh sale agreement was entered into on 26.11.2000 and in that sale agreement the landlord acknowledged the receipt of a sum of Rs.3,35,000/- and the tenant agreed to pay balance sale consideration of Rs.5,65,000/- on or before 10.1.2001. Even thereafter the landlord did not come forward to execute the sale deed and started demanding additional sale price of Rs.1 lakh and as it was not accepted by the tenant, the landlord filed the RCOP with the ulterior motives by suppressing the real facts. The tenant has also questioned the claim of the landlord that he requires the petition schedule property bonafidely for his own occupation.

7. The rent controller by her order dated 24.4.2003 held that the tenant was not able to establish his case that the landlord informed him not to pay monthly rent after executing the 2nd sale agreement dated 26.11.2000 and therefore the revision petitioner/tenant has committed wilful default in the payment of the monthly rent. Further, the rent controller has also referred to the claim of the tenant that he paid rent up to 2000 by depositing the same in the name of the landlord in a bank and held that the tenant has not produced any counterfoil, re