Adjustment for advanced amount against rent.

V. Ratnam J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition, at the instance of the tenant, is directed against the order of eviction passed by the authorities below on an application filed by the respondent-landlord under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The premises bearing door No. 136, Cutchery Street, Thirupattur Town, belonging to the respondent herein was let out to the petitioner under a registered tenancy agreement dated 25.7.1978 for a period of five years from 1.8.1978 to 31.7.1985 on a monthly rental of Rs. 100 payable on the 5th of every month. There was also a provision in the rental agreement that major repairs in respect of the premises have to be carried out by the landlord, while minor repairs have to be attended to by the tenant. A sum of Rs. 7,000 was also paid by the petitioner to the respondent as refundable advance without interest on the expiry of the period of tenancy. According to the case of the respondent, the premises in question was let out to the petitioner for the purpose of running a textile shop and that after carrying on business in textiles for some time, the tenant commenced a business in cement and that would constitute a different user of the premises by the petitioner. Besides, the respondent claimed that owing to the carrying on of the business in cement by the petitioner, substantial damage was caused to the building and the petitioner purported to carry out repairs without the permission of the respondent and sought to adjust the rents payable by the petitioner for the period from May, 1984 to March, 1985 and such an adjustment of rents by the petitioner towards the expenses incurred by him for repair, was not valid and binding on the respondent and the petitioner had thus committed wilful default in the payment of rents for the aforesaid period. On the aforesaid grounds the respondent prayed for an order of eviction against the petitioner.

2. In the counter filed by the petitioner, it was contended that owing to the neglect of the respondent in not carrying out the repairs to the premises, despite the issue of a notice by the petitioner, he was obliged to carry out the repairs and towards that, an expenditure of Rs. 1,061-70 had been incurred and deducting that amount from the rents payable for the period from May, 1984 to March, 1985, there was no arrears of rent. The petitioner also disputed that the premises had been used for a purpose other than that for which it was let out.

3. Before the Rent Controller, Tiruppattur, on behalf of the respondent, Exhibits P.1 to P.5 were marked and the respondent gave evidence as P.W.1, while, on behalf of the petitioner, Exhibits R.1 to R.9 was filed and the petitioner was examined as R.W.1. On a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the Rent Controller found that the respondent had not established that the premises had been used for a purpose other than that for which it was let out and that under Section 22 of the Act, the petitioner was obliged to seek the permission of the respondent before effecting the repairs and that too for so amount not exceeding a month's rent and not having so done, the petitioner cannot be heard to claim that the rents payable by him for the period between May, 1984 and March, 1985 should be adjusted towards the repairs carried out by him. In accordance with the conclusions so arrived at, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the petitioner on the ground that the adjustment of the amount incurred by the petitioner towards repairs from out of the rents payable by him was not in order and that the petitioner had committed wilful default in the payment of rents for the period in question. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No. 62 of 1985 before the Appellate Authority (Sub Court), Tirupattur. On a reconsideration of the entire evidenc