The landlord's retention of excess advance amount without adjustment violated the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

Challenging the fair and decretal order, dated 28-8-2012 and made in R. C. A. No.2 of 2010 on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge’s Court) at Tiruchengode, confirming the fair and decretal order, dated 8-2-2010 in R. C. O. P. No.1 of 2009 on the file of the learned Rent Controller (District Munsif) at Tiruchengode, the petitioner, who is the appellant in R. C. A. No.2 of 2010, has approached this Court with this memorandum of this Civil revision.

2. The facts, which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision are as under :

(i) The respondent, being the landlord, in respect of the property specified in R. C. O. P. No. 1 of 2009 seems to have filed the petition in R. C. O. P. No.1 of 2009 as against the respondent, who is the tenant in respect of the above said premises on three grounds:

a. Under Section 10(2)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, for eviction of the respondent/tenant for wilful default.

b. Under Section 10(3)(a)(ii) of the Act, for owner’s use and occupation.

c. Under Section 14(1) (b) of the Act, for bona fide requirement of the building for demolition and erecting a new construction.

(ii) The respondent herein is the owner of the terrace building bearing door No. 14B, Bungalow Street, Tiruchengode by virtue of the partition deed, dated 7-3-2000 executed between him and his father. It is a non residential building.

(iii) The respondent came to be in occupation of the said building as a tenant for non residential purpose for running a hardware shop from the month of September, 2003 on a monthly rent of Rs. 2000/-. The respondent had paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as an advance at the time of his occupation and out of the said amount a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was adjusted towards the rent from September, 2003 and now there is a balance of Rs. 20,000/- at the hands of the respondent as advance. The respondent was not regular in payment of rent and he had committed willful default in payment of rent from December 2008. However, the respondent has stated in his petition that the petitioner had to pay one month rent in respect of February, 2009.

(iv) The building is very old and aged about 50 years and is in dilapidated condition. The respondent required the building for his own use and occupation and he has intended to start his own business in the said premises. Since the respondent has committed wilful default in payment of rent, the above petition has been filed, seeking the relief as aforestated.

3-4. On the other hand, the respondent, against whom the above said petition had been filed, has filed a counter before the Rent Controller, wherein he has stated that he had entered into tenancy only through the father of the petitioner/landlord and that he had paid an advance of Rs. 1,00,000/- at the time of his occupation. The petitioner’s father did not issue any receipt for the advance amount. Since there is some misunderstanding between the respondent and his father in respect of the marriage of the respondent, the respondent/landlord has been trying to evict the revision petitioner by force without due process of law.

5. Since the respondent/landlord had been threatening the revision petitioner, he had lodged a complaint against the respondent/landlord before the Tiruchengode Town Police Station and only for the purpose of wreaking vengeance, the present petition has been filed against the revision petitioner.

6. The respondent herein being the petitioner in R. C. O. P. had examined himself as P. W. 1 and one Mr. Arumugam as P. W. 2. During the course of their examination, Exs. P. 1 to P6 were marked. On the other hand, the revision petitioner being the respondent therein has examined himself as R. W. 1 and one Ramasamy as R. W.2 and two documentary evidences were marked as Exs. R. 1 and R. 2 on his behalf.

7. On evaluating the evidences both the oral and documentary, the learned Rent Controller, has allowed the petition only in respect of t