The legal interpretation of 'foster son' as a member of the family under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act was established.

1. These RevisionPetitions arose out of the order, dated 4. 2003 in R.C.A.No.2 of 2002 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge) at Nagapattinam confirming the judgment and decree dated 4. 2002 in R.C.O.P.No.30 of 2000 passed by the Rent Controller (District Munsif) at Nagapattinam.

2. Thebrief facts, which are necessary for disposal of these Revisions, can be stated briefly as below:

3. The revision petitioner is the tenant under the respondent herein in respect of the demised premises. The petitioner is a Weavers Society, being represented by its Managing Director, having its office at Thattanchavadi, Pondicherry State. The petitioner took the property on lease on 12. 1978 on monthly rent of Rs.100/- and a sum of Rs.500/- was paid towards advance. The rent amount was revised periodically from time to time and as on the date of filing the Rent Control proceedings, the rent was at Rs.400/- and advance amount was Rs.2000/-. According to the petitioner, the rent amount was paid regularly without any default up to 30.6.1998 and thereafter, when the payment of rent was offered, the respondent refused to receive and demanded additional amount of Rs.50/-. The petitioner also agreed the same and ready to pay the rent, but the respondent refused to receive and hence, the petitioner sent the rent through money order, which was also refused by the respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a legal notice requesting the respondent to give her Bank account to deposit the rent regularly, for which also there is no reply. In such circumstances, finding no other alternative, the petitioner filed a Petition in R.C.O.P.No.30 of 2000 under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’) before the Rent Controller, Nagapattinam praying to permit the petitioner to deposit the rent amount of Rs.9,000/- towards rent for 20 months payable from July 1998 till October 2000.

4. During pendency of the above said Petition, the respondent/landlady filed a Petition in R.C.O.P.No.2 of 2001 under Section 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(iii) of the Act for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of willful default and owner’s occupation. According to the respondent/landlady, the tenant occupied the premises initially on monthly rent of Rs.100/- with advance of Rs.500/-, which subsequently increased and on the date of filing the Petition, the rent was at Rs.400/- and advance of Rs.2000/-. On 7. 1983, the tenant executed an unregistered Lease Deed for a period of one year and later on 28. 1994, he executed a Lease Deed for a period of three years. It is agreed that the monthly rent should be paid on or before 10th of every succeeding month of English calendar. The tenant used to pay the rent by way of demand draft enclosing a letter. On 6. 1998, the tenant sent Rs.400/- towards rent by way of Demand Draft, that that time, the landlady specifically informed the tenant that she requires the demised premises for her foster son, namely Sekar to carryon jewellery business. The rental agreement expired on 28. 1997 and the landlady demanded the tenant to hand over vacant possession of the premises. However, the tenant neither vacated the premises nor paid the rent from June 1998. In such circumstances, the landlady has come forward with the Eviction Petition.

5. By a common order, dated 4. 2002, the Rent Controller while dismissing the Petition filed by the tenant, allowed the Eviction Petition filed by the landlady, directing the tenant to vacate and hand over the possession of the premises to the landlady within three months from the date of the order. Aggrieved by the said common order, the tenant has preferred Appeals in R.C.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2002 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Nagapattinam.

6. By common judgment, dated 4. 2003, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, Nagapattinam, having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, dismis