Tenant not complying with requirements of Sec.8.

1. This revision is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, in R.C.A.No. 19 of 1993 confirming the judgment of the learned Rent Controller, Thiruvarur, in R.C.O.P.No. 14 of 1992. The landlord/petitioner in the R.C.O.P. is the revision petitioner.

.2. In the petition filed by the landlord, it is contend that the respondent is the tenant in the residential building. The tenancy was the first of every English calendar month and the same was oral. The monthly rent was only Rs. 80 and the respondent was not regular in payment of rent and he was a chronic defaulter. He has also not paid rent from June, 1989 and had committed wilful default inspite of repeated demands. The conduct of the respondent shows supine indifference and callousness. When the petitioner pressed the respondent to pay the arrears of rent, he had issued a lawyers notice on 1. 1992 claiming as though there was only arrears of rent for two months. But the petitioner gave a reply and terminated his tenancy on 22. 1991 calling upon him to deliver vacant possession by 3. 1992. The respondent gave a reply contending false allegations. The allegations in the reply notice were denied and the respondent did not carry out any repairs in the building. The alleged repairs were only invention of the tenant for the purpose of his case. Nor was the tenant allowed to do any repairs. The rent up to March, 1992 was Rs.2,720 and therefore, the respondent had to be evicted forthwith. It was further contended that the petitioners family had increased in number and his son Syed Rahman wanted to live separately from the family and therefore, the building was required for his own occupation of his family member and he was not occupying a residential building of his own. Therefore, the requirement of the petitioner was bona fide.

.3. In the counter while denying the said allegations, the respondent contended that the premises was taken on lease for both commercial and residential purpose. The building was not a single unit, but consists of tiled portion divided into three separate units and the respondent was in occupation of the third portion. The lessor had agreed that the lessee shall carry out all the repairs to the premises and that the lessor would reimburse such amounts spent for repairing. He also denied the allegation that he was in the habit of committing default. He occupied the premises in the year 1966 and at that time the rent was Rs. 30 per month and subsequently increased to Rs. 80. When the rent was due for the month of November, 1991, the lessor refused to receive the same with ulterior motive of letting out the premises to some other individuals. Therefore, the rent due for the months November and December, 1991 was sent by Money Order and the said fact was communicated through lawyers notice dated 1. 1992. The Money Order was returned and a reply was sent by the lessor on 21. 1992 containing false allegations. Therefore, the averment that the lessee was in arrears of rent for the period of 30 months was false. The respondent also sent a reply notice on 22. 1992. The rent for January, 1992 was also sent by money order. but returned by the lessor. Thereafter till the petition was filed, for subsequent period also, the rent was also sent by Money Order, but was refused. Therefore, he was depositing a sum of Rs. 720 towards the rent due from November, 1991 to July, 1992. Therefore, there was no default on his part. The claim for personal occupation was also denied and it was also contended that the landlord have various other buildings. According to the respondent, the lessor was adopting a high handed action only with the object of driving out the lessee from the premises. As the property had been leased out for commercial purpose also, the tenant would be subjected to irreparable hardship if he was to be evicted.

4. The Rent Controller found that the claim for eviction on both the grounds were not sustainable and hence