The tenant's duty to approach the court for fixation of fair rent or to deposit the rent in court if the increased demand is not agreeable.

1. This revision is directed against the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tiruchy, b R.CA. No. 26 of 1993 confirming the order of the Rent Controller, Tiruchy, in R.CO.P. No. 156 of 1987. The tenant is the revision petitioner.

2. Eviction was sought for on the grounds of wilful default and for demolition and reconstruction.

3. The landlord contended that he is the owner of the property and that in respect of the petition property, the tenant had agreed to pay Rs. 175/- as rent per month from the Tamil month of Thai’ (January), 1986. The previous rent was in vogue for many years and tenant knew very well that the other tenants in the other houses were paying enhanced rent. The premises in the occupation of the tenant was an independent house. When the landlords agent approached the tenant taking advantage of the absence of t he acceptance of the rent at Rs. 175/- per month in writing, he resiled and refused to pay the said amount and the agent complained and reported the matter to the landlord. Since the tenant did not pay the agreed rent, landlord issued a notice on 173.1986 by registered post. The tenant has given a reply dated 20.3.1986 containing false and frivolous allegations. The contention that the rent was only Rs. 100/- from January, 1986 was not correct. The default was therefore wilful and due to supine indifference and hence the tenant was liable to be evicted. The Money Order were refused since the amount did not represent the agreed rent. A sum of Rs. 2,625/- was standing as arrears. The landlord further contended that the petition premises was bona fide required for demolition and reconstruction so as to augment income. The desire of the petitioner to put up new construction was true and the need is genuine. On that ground also, the tenant was liable to be evicted. The landlord also gave statutory undertaking to commence the work of demolition not later than one month after he recovers possession.

4. In the counter filed by the tenant, it was stated that the rent was only Rs. 100/- per month and not Rs. 175/- from the Tamil Month of ‘Thai’ 1986. The contention that the landlords agent came to collect the rent and the tenant refused to pay the enhanced rent, is not correct. The tenant met the petitioner in person and tendered the rent due for the months of ‘Thai’ and ‘Masi’ and the landlord refused to receive the rent. Therefore, he had sent the rent for the month of ‘Thai’ by Money Order which was refused. Similarly, the rent for the next month also was sent by Money Order and therefore, there was no default in the payment of rent. The tenant also required the landlord to specify the name of the Bank where the rents can be deposited. In the mean time, the petitioner had filed the present petition for eviction. Therefore, there was no arrears of rent and the tenant has not defaulted in payment of rent. The further claim of the landlord that the petition building requires demolition and reconstruction is denied by the tenant. There was no such honest desire on the part of the landlord. The building does not require immediate demolition. The idea of the landlord is to evict the tenant and let out the premises to some other person for higher rent.

5. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority concurrently found that the old rent was Rs. 100/- per month and the tenant had not paid the revised rent as demanded by the landlord and that the landlord bona fide requires the building for demolition and reconstruction. Hence, the above revision by the tenant.

6. Mr. R. Sundar Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the tenant raises the following points for consideration: —

(a) From the petition as well as the findings rendered by the both the Courts below, it would show that the agreed rent was not Rs. 175/- per month and that it was only Rs. 100/per month. The findings of the Courts below is to the effect that the landlord had demanded at the rate of Rs. 175/-per month, hence the tenant did