Point of law : Tenant paid the arrears of rent only in a lumpsum and the same was received by the landlord without prejudice to the R.C.O.P. filed by him. In the above circumstances, it is decided that there was wilful default in payment of rent and the landlord requires the premises “for own use”.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18/1960 as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 23/1973, against the fair and decreetal order, dated 17.07.2018, passed in R.C.A.No.06 of 2016, on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Sub-Court), Thoothukudi, reversing the fair and decreetal order, dated 11.01.2016, passed in R.C.O.P.No.7 of 2014, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court (Rent Controller Court), Thoothukudi.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order, dated 17.07.2018, passed in R.C.A.No.06 of 2016, on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Sub-Court), Thoothukudi, reversing the order, dated 11.01.2016, passed in R.C.O.P.No.7 of 2014, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court (Rent Controller Court), Thoothukudi.

2. The revision petitioner is the second landlord, the second respondent herein is the first landlord, the first respondent herein is the first respondent/tenant and the respondents 3 and 4 herein are the respondents 2 and 3 in R.C.O.P.No.7 of 2014.

3. The landlords, viz., Stalin and Raja, filed a petition for eviction in R.C.O.P.No.7 of 2014.

4. On the side of the landlords, one witness was examined and five documents were marked. On the side of the tenants, two witnesses were examined and four documents were marked.

5. After hearing both sides, the Principal District Munsif Court (Rent Controller Court), Thoothukudi, has allowed the Petition and ordered for eviction. Against that order, the tenants filed an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Sub-Court), Thoothukudi, in R.C.A.No.06 of 2016.

6. After hearing both sides, Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thoothukudi, set aside the order passed by the Principal District Munsif Court (Rent Controller Court), Thoothukudi. Against the same, the second landlord/Raja has preferred this Civil Revision Petition on the following grounds:-

6.1. The Rent Controller Appellate Authority committed an error in holding that the respondents have not committed any wilful default without adverting to the scope and ambit of Sections 7 and 10(2)(i) of the Rent Control Act.

6.2. The respondents committed wilful default in paying the rent from June-2012 till February-2014 and the respondents failed to send any notice or communication, requesting the landlord to adjust the rent from the advance amount and the question of invoking Section 7 of the Rent Control Act is unsustainable.

6.3. Though the tenants claimed that they have sent the rent through Money Order, they have not proved the same. The Rent Control Appellate Authority failed to consider that the tenants did not take steps to deposit the entire balance of rent, immediately after the filing of the R.C.O.P. petition and they have not taken any steps by invoking Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act.

6.4. The Rent Control Appellate Authority failed to consider the necessity for the premises for the own use of the revision petitioner. The Appellate Authority has wrongly decided that an extent of one Cent will not be convenient for the revision petitioner to conduct the business and failed to consider that R.W.1 has admitted in his evidence that they are doing business in another building, which is situated opposite to the suit property and prayed the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority to be set aside.

7. On the side of the revision petitioner, it is stated that the property is situated in a prime locality in Thoothukudi. There was wilful default in payment of rent from June-2012 till February-2014, for a period of 21 months. After the filing of the R.C.O.P. petition, ie.30.05.2014, the tenant has paid Rs.59,800/- as balance of rent in a lumpsum. The payment of rent in lumpsum was received by the landlords, without any prejudice to the pendency of the petition. The property is situated near the Harbour and advance amount cannot be treated as rent, unless