A tenant cannot approbate and reprobate by accepting the benefit of an order of eviction and then challenging its validity.

1. Revision petition has been filed, challenging an order, dated 20.11.2012, passed by the learned VIII Judge (Appellate Authority) Small Causes Court, Chennai, directing the Registry to number the Rent Control Appeal filed by the tenant. The respondent/tenant is a practising lawyer and submissions have been advanced by him.

2. Earlier, the revision petitioner-landlord has filed RCOP.No.821 of 2010, contending inter alia that the entire premises, old Door No.58 and New Door No.18, Salai Vinayagar Koil Street, Chennai, is owned jointly by himself and his son. The premises was managed by him. The respondent/tenant was originally inducted in the 2nd Floor of the above premises, under an agreement, dated 10.06.1999, by one Mrs. Kasiammal, who was the then owner of the entire premises. From the said Mrs. Kasiammal, the entire property was purchased by the petitioner and his son, under a deed of sale, dated 27.06.2001. Even after the change of ownership of the property, the respondent continued to occupy the said portion, as tenant. On 01.01.2006, a new agreement of tenancy has been made between the petitioner and the respondent, wherein, the tenant had agreed to pay rent, at the rate of Rs.3,200/-per month, since 01.01.2006. A sum of Rs.50,000/- was left with the petitioner as security. In order to provide accommodation to his son, the revision petitioner/landlord demanded the tenant to vacate the premises. At this juncture, the respondent-tenant sent a notice, dated 13.06.2009, alleging that the landlord had refused to receive the rent. The tenant called upon the landlord/petitioner to specify a bank situated in the City of Chennai, so as to enable him to deposit the rent into the bank. Thereafter, the tenant came forward to pay the rent, ending with 30.06.2009. Subsequently, on 20.03.2010, the landlord caused a notice to the tenant to vacate the premises. Though the said notice was acknowledged by the respondent on 22.03.2010, but there was no reply. Therefore, for bona fide occupation of the petitioner's son, the landlord has filed a rent control proceedings. In his petition, there was also a pleading that the landlord did not possess any other building of his own in City of Chennai. The tenant did not file any counter affidavit. The learned Rent Controller has framed following point for consideration,

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for eviction as sought for in the petition?”

3. On either side, one witness was examined and no document was marked. The evidence adduced by the parties, before the Rent Controller, is reproduced.

“TAMIL”

Translated portion of the above passage is extracted hereunder:

"PW.1. The respondent asks for time, for a period of two years, for vacating the petition property. I agree to it. I pray that the judgment may be passed accordingly.

RW.1. It is true that the son of the petitioner requires the property. I agree that I will vacate the petition property after a period of two years and hand over the possession of the same."

4. On the basis of the candid admission made by the tenant, agreeing to the bona fide requirement of the landlord, the Rent Controller has passed the following orders,

“7. Thus the petitioner during his chief examination has deposed that he agrees to grant two years time to the respondent for vacating the petition premises. Similarly, the respondent has admitted that the requirement of the petitioner to be a bona fide one and further agreed to vacate petition premises provided two years period is granted to respondent for vacating the petition premises.

8. Therefore, this Court finds that this petition can be allowed as per the evidence let in by both parties.”

5. Accordingly, by judgment and decree, dated 09.11.2010, the learned Rent Controller, has allowed RCOP.No.821 of 2010, ordering eviction. Time for eviction was for two years and that the period has to be computed from 03.11.2012.

6. After two years, the tenant, who had deposed that he would quit and deliver vacant