The main legal point established in the judgment is that the tenant's payment of advance and rent at a lower rate did not constitute wilful default, and the landlord's genuine requirement for his own business purpose entitled him to seek eviction under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.139 of 2004

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/land lord challenging the Order dated 08.04.2004 made in RCA.No.12 of 2003, on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge), Tirunelveli, reversing the Fair and Decreetal Order passed in R.C.O.P.No.48 of 2001, dated 07.02.2003, on the file of the Rent Controller (Second Additional District Munsif Court), Tirunelveli.

2. The petitioner in both the Civil Revision Petitions is the owner of the scheduled building situated at Block No.3, Keelapputhu Street @ Bharathirar Street, T.S.Ward.No.4 in Tirunelveli District. According to the petitioner, the respondent paid a sum of Rs.50,000/-to the petitioner on 26.10.1998 and the respondent was allowed to enjoy the building in lieu of interest. When the petitioner issued a notice on 25.04.2001, calling upon the respondent to receive a sum of Rs.50,000/- and surrender possession of the schedule building, the respondent denied to surrender possession by sending a reply stating that even prior to 26.10.1998, he occupied the building as a tenant and after 26.10.1998, he is enjoying the property in lieu of interest.

3. According to the petitioner, the respondent was paying rent of Rs.800/- per month before he paid the lumpsum amount of Rs.50,000/- and the same was endorsed in the passbook maintained by the respondent. From 01.11.1998 onwards, the respondent refused to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.800/- per month and the tenant claimed that the rent is only Rs.400/-per month. Since the respondent was in arrears of rent from 01.11.1998 to 31.05.2001 at the rate of Rs.800/- per month for 19 months to the tune of Rs.15,200/-, and when the same was demanded by the petitioner, he sent a Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.800/- along with a reply notice, there is arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.14,400/-. The same being wilful default on the part of the respondent, the petitioner filed R.C.O.P.No.48 of 2001, on the file of the learned Rent Controller [Second Additional District Munsif], Tirunelveli, on the ground of wilful default.

4. According to the petitioner, the schedule building was leased out to the respondent for the purpose of residence and also for running his milk vending business and the respondent was residing in the upstairs. Only about 5 years back, he shifted his residence to his newly constructed house at Gomathi Nagar, Suthamali Junction. As the petitioner is conducting his milk vending business in a rented premises and residing in a rented premises, the petitioner claims the demised building for his own occupation, viz,, for the purpose of his business and for his residential purpose. Thus, the petitioner filed Eviction Petition in R.C.O.P.48 of 2001 under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(3)(a)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

5. The said Eviction Petition was resisted by the respondent by filing a counter affidavit stating that the respondent having paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner, he was allowed to enjoy the building in lieu of interest, and as such, there is no arrears of rent. The building was originally granted on lease by the original owner viz., Sri Subramania Pillai @ Kolappa Pillai. At that time, the rent was fixed at the rate of Rs.10/- per month. The said Subramania Pillai @ Kolappa Pillai was the Maternal Uncle of the respondent's wife. The said Subramania Pillai @ Kolappa Pillai had no issues. The petitioner is the brother's son of the said Subramania Pillai @ Kolappa Pillai and on the demise of the said Subramania Pillai @ Kolappa Pillai, his wife Kalyani Ammal inherited the property and after the death of the said Subramania Pillai @ Kolappa Pillai, the respondent was paying the rent to Kalyani Ammal till her death. After the death of the said Kalyani Ammal, the petitioner was collecting the rent from the respondent. The petitioner had put up a room in the upstairs portion about four years