No explanation given by tenant for non-payment of rent to landlord.

ORDER: The landlord, unable to evict the tenant before the Courts below, has moved this Court, for the same relief, as revision petitioner.

2. The petitioner/landlord attempted to evict the tenant on four grounds viz., that,

(1) the tenant had committed willful default;

(2) the tenant had committed or caused to be committed acts of waste, which are likely to impair materially the value of the building;

(3) the tenant is guilty of causing nuisance to the occupier, and

(4) the building is required for the occupation of his son, who is doing a business.

3. The default period, which is stated as willful commences from 1.7.1996, till the date of filing of the petition, amounting to Rs.24,000. The acts of waste or damages alleged are that physical abuse and unauthorised storage of water, which had caused damage to the building. The guilty act of the tenant alleged is that he had caused nuisance to one of the tenants of the building, by allowing the water to leak, thereby inflicting sufferings to the other tenants also. Owner’s occupation is aimed on the ground that the landlord’s son is having a tea manufacturing factory, for which he is not having a premises of his own at Ooty, the further fact being, not owning any non residential building of their own.

4. The tenant/respondent opposed the above application, generally denying all the allegations and calling the landlord to prove the same strictly.

5. The Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority, after going through the materials placed before them, were unable to satisfy themselves, regarding the grounds leveled, for the eviction of the tenant. In this view of the matter, the dismissal of R.C.O.P. was confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the said orders are under challenge in this revision.

6. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.S.Krishnan and the learned counsel for the respondent, Mr.A.Bobblie.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/landlord submits, that admittedly, there was default in payment of the monthly rent from 1.7.1996 and even during the pendency of the eviction proceedings also, the tenant was not regular in paying the rent, despite this fact, both the Courts below have committed an error, in not ordering eviction, which is against the evidence, warranting to label that decision, though concurrent, as perverse, and in this view, this Court should interfere, under the revisional jurisdiction, to set it right.

8.Per contra, the learned counsel for the tenant/respondent submits, that though there was some delay in the payment of rent, the same was not caused due to the fault of the tenant and this delay had occurred, due to the practice prevailed between the tenant and the landlord, in collecting the rent in a lump sum, which could not be labelled as willful default, imposing the penalty of eviction.

9. By going through the materials available on record, as well as scanning the orders of both the Courts below, I am constrained to say, that the Courts below have not properly approached the case, applying the correct provisions of law, resulting injustice to the landlord and in this view, interference of this Court, under Sec.25 of the Act, is inevitable.

10. It is the specific case of the landlord in paragraph 4 of the petition, that the tenant had failed to pay monthly rent from 1.7.1996, amounting to Rs.24,000 up to the end of February 1997, which is labeled as willful default. For this, the answer in the counter is that the allegations made in paragraph 4 of the petition is false and the petitioner is put to strict proof. Except this, I find no allegations, contradicting the period of default, quantum of rent, etc. Here is a peculiar

defence, where the tenant says that the agreed rent is Rs.4,000 p.m., whereas the landlord says the agreed rent between the parties is Rs.3,000 p.m. Whatever may be the contentions of the parties, in this regard, the findings of both the Courts below is that the agreed rent bet

Click Here to Read the rest of this document