Essentials for eviction u/s 7(a)

The tenant is the petitioner in this revision in which he challenges the order of eviction passed by the learned District Judge of Coimbatore on the ground of default by him in the payment of rent. The petitioner, tenant, had been carrying on his business as a baker at Erode in the premises belonging to the respondent for over 30 years paying a rent of Rs.7 per month. While so, the respondent landlord filed on 15th June, 1949, B.R.C. No.88 of 1949, before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode, who was the Rent Controller for the area, for the eviction of the petitioner from the premises on the allegation that “he often commits default in the payment of monthly rent and never cares to pay in spite of demand,” and that he owed Rs.28 towards rent for four months from January to April, 1949. The defence of the tenant was that there was an agreement between the landlord and himself, by reason of which, the landlord agreed to take rent from him for four months at a time and that this arrangement was necessitated by the tact that the landlord who was a roving propagandist came to Erode once in about four months. In regard to the rent for January to April, 1949, he also pleaded that the landlord’s agent refused to receive the rent tendered by nun and demanded an enhanced amount. He also stated that at the request of the landlord’s agent, one Muthu, he had repaired the house and was, therefore entitled to set off this amount of expenses which according to him came to Rs.75 against the rent payable by him. Along with his statement of objections he filed a series of receipts for rent issued by the landlord which showed consolidated payments of rent for three or four or even more months at a time.

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rent Controller, dismissed the landlord’s application by his order dated 28th December, 1950, as not bona fide holding that the agreement as to the time for the payment of rent pleaded by the tenant had been made out. In regard to the claim to set off the expenses incurred in connection with the repairs to the building against the rent due the Rent Controller found that the repairs had been effected Out that the agent of the landlord with whose consent they were executed had not the requisite authority to bind his principal and that consequently the tenant was not entitled to the set off claimed by him.

The landlord took up the matter in appeal C.M.A. No.28 of 1951 on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore, and the learned Subordinate Judge after referring to the failure of the landlord to give evidence in the case accepted the uncontradicted testimony of the tenant as to the agreement pleaded and found that there had been no default in the payment of rent and dismissed the landlord’s appeal. From this decision dated 26th March, 1951, the landlord preferred a revision petition to the District Court under S. 12-B of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1951 and the learned District Judge accepting the revision, reversed the order of the Rent Controller and the Subordinate Judge and ordered eviction and the present Civil Revision Petition is against this order.

When the matter was before the District Judge the law as to the grounds upon which the eviction of a tenant could be ordered, had undergone modification by reason of the enactment of the Madras Act (VIII of 1951) and Act (XXV of 1951) which amended the original Act of 1949. By reason of section 20 of the Amending Act (VIII of 1951) the substantive changes introduced in section 7(2) of the Act were made retrospective and applicable to pending proceedings. In fact it was under the Amending Act that the learned District Judge himself derived jurisdiction to entertain the revision petitions but this aspect of the matter was not noticed by the learned District Judge, possibly because his attention was not drawn to it.

Before dealing with the effect of the Amendment made by the Madras Act (VIII of 1951) the reasoning of the learned District Judge