Amount of advance can be adjusted only by the landlord on his initiative.

1. The revision petition is the tenant/the 1st respondent before the courts below, and the respondent herein is the landlady/petitioner before the courts below.

2. The respondent/landlady herein filed the application in R.C.O.P.No.37 of 1990, on the file of the Rent Controller/ (II Additional District Munsif) at Coimbatore for eviction of the revision petitioner/tenant under Secs.10(2)(i) and 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1960 on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and on the ground of subletting.

3. The material averments in the eviction petition filed by the respondent/landlady are as follows:

The first respondent is the tenant under the petitioner in occupation of her building bearing new Door No.15, Huzur Road, Coimbatore on a monthly rent of Rs.250 and a further sum of Rs.15 towards electricity charges, totalling Rs.265 for each English calendar month payable on or before the 1st day of the succeeding month. The 1st respondent has been very irregular in the payment of the rents due by him. As on 1.2.1990 the total arrears of rent due by the 1st respondent to the petitioner amounts to Rs.3,180. On the ground of wilful default in the payment of the rents the 1st respondent is liable to be evicted from the premises. Further without the petitioners knowledge or consent the 1st respondent has sublet a portion of the premises to one N.Balasubramanian, on this ground of unauthorised who is the 2nd respondent in the R.C.O.P. sub-letting the respondents are liable to be evicted.

4. The revision petitioner/tenant filed a counter statement before the lower court raising the following contentions: First of all the monthly rent is not Rs.250 as alleged by the petitioner in para. 3 of the petition but only Rs.125 per month and becomes it is payable on the 1st day of the succeeding month. The 1st respondent tenant also denies the allegations that as on 1.2.1990 the total arrears of rent was Rs.3,180 as stated by the petitioner in para. 5 of the petition. On the other hand, it is the petitioner, who is trying to suppress the huge advances received by her and her predecessor-in-title and suppressed the repairs done by the 1st respondent at his cost. Considering the abovesaid facts the court will find that there are no arrears of rent and that the 1st respondent has not committed any wilful default. The further allegation that the 1st respondent sublet a portion of the premises to one N.Balasubramaniam without the knowledge or consent of the petitioner as alleged in para. 7 of the petition is also false. The 1st respondent never sublet any portion of the premises to any body including the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent became tenant in respect of the petition mentioned premises under Advocate Mr.P.R.Rangaswami Iyengar, Coimbatore on 24.8.1974 by paying a sum of Rs.500 as advance and Rs.75 as advance rent for one month, and the tenancy commenced from 1.9.1974, Thereafter the petition mentioned property was demolished and reconstructed in 1978 and 1979 into a pucca R.C. building. The rent was revised and re-fixed at Rs.125 per month by the Advocate late Mr.P.R.Rangaswami Iyengar including all amenities charges. The previous landlord Sri P.R.Rangaswami Iyengar had totally received a sum of Rs.1,125 from the 1st respondent towards advance and one month advance rent. Originally the electricity charges were collected at the rate of Rs.5 per month from 1.4.1981. Then it was increased to Rs.10 and then to Rs.15 per month. Since the 1st respondent refused to pay higher rent, the petitioner issued a lawyers notice on 24.3.1988 falsely claiming the rent at Rs.200 per month. Thereafter since the petitioner persisted in her demand for a higher rent and the 1st respondent agreed to pay another sum of Rs.675 as additional security on 29.6.1988. For this sum also the petitioner did not give any receipt. Then the petitioner cut off all the amenities one by one enjoyed by the 1st responden