Direction given for eviction of tenant.

This revision filed under Sec.25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1960 as amended up to date is being canvassed against the legality, propriety and correctness of the fair and final order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority made in R.C.A.No.90 of 1985 dated 20th December, 1988 confirming in toto the fair and final order passed by the learned Rent Controller made in R.C.O.P.No.103 of 1984 on 3rd July, 1985.

2. Brief facts as culled out from the case records, which led to the revision may be extracted as hereunder:

The residential premises situated in the town of Ootacamund in Nilgiris District was under the tenancy occupation on a monthly rental of Rs.85 payable on the first of every succeeding English calendar month regularly to the landlady who is the revision petitioner herein. Since January, 1978, the rental has not been paid though it was claimed at the rate of Rs.150 a suit in O.S.No.405 of 1979 was filed by the revision petitioner herein before the civil court on 111. 1979 claiming arrears at the rate of Rs. 150 for a period of about 22 months. Even after the said suit, since the respondent had not paid the rent, R.C.O.P.No.103 of 1984 was filed on 111. 1980 under Sec.10(2)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Buildings Act’ claiming arrears at the rate of Rs. 150 per month for the period commencing from 1. 1978 till 310. 1980 for 34 months. The respondent resisted the said application on the ground that the agreed rental for the premises was only Rs.85 and not at the rate of Rs.150 and that the landlady was in the habit of receiving the rentals as and when occasion arises in a lump sum and not every month regularly and that since she filed a suit O.S.No.405 of 1979, which was pending disposal, he could not pay the rent to the landlady and that therefore, there was no wilful default on his part and prayed for the dismissal of the petition for eviction.

3. On recording the oral and documentary evidence on behalf of both parties and on considering the entire matter with the arguments advanced on their behalf the learned Rent Controller has found that the ground for eviction has not been established and accordingly rejected the petition. This was assailed by the landlady before the appellate authority by preferring the Rent Control Appeal above referred. Even on reappraisal of the entire adduced evidence, case records and the respective arguments made on behalf of the parties herein the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority declined to interfere by confirming the dismissal of the petition filed by the revision petitioner here in and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved at this and having lost before both courts below, the landlady, has approached this Court by filing this revision petition challenging the legal sanctity, propriety of the fair and final orders passed concurrently by both courts below.

.4. I have heard the Bar for the respective parties herein for and against. Miss.Usha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner took strenuous attempt in convincing me that the very inaction of the tenant in not venturing his attempt to pay the rent, which he is legally bound to pay from the period of 1. 1978 till the date of filing of the suit O.S.No.405 of 1979, namely, on 111. 1979, clearly projects the default in payment, which is not only wanton but also deliberate and wilful and that even after the filing of the suit till it was disposed in the month of October, 1980, the inaction of the tenant, cannot be recognised in law that it is a justifiable one under any circumstances. It was her endeavour that for a period of more than 33 months the tenant was taking his hide under the pretext of a suit filed by the landlady, only after 22 months from the date of commencement of the arrears, which act of the tenant, no court of law could allow and recognise as an excusable one. According to the learned co