ORDER :

Both the above Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the tenant, who had suffered an adverse order dated 23.01.2020 in M.P.No.381 of 2019 in R.C.A.No.365 of 2018 and a consequential order dated 03.03.2020 in R.C.A.No.365 of 2018.

2. The petitioner and the respondent had entered into a registered agreement of lease on 27.05.2014 with respect to the land and building bearing Door No.144/2, old Door Nos. 82, 144 and 144/1, Purasawalkam High Road, Kellys, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 001, measuring about 1 ground and 654 sq.ft., Purasawalkam Division, Perambur Taluk, Chennai – 600 001. The petitioner was the lessee/tenant and the respondent was the lessor/landlord. The lease was for commercial purpose. The period of lease was 15 years. It had been agreed that there would be a lock in period of three years. This would indicate that during that period of three years, the lessor would be permitted unhindered right of lessee over the property under lease. There was also an agreement with respect to renewal of the lease after the period of 15 years. There was also a rent free period of 90 days / 3 months. This meant that the first rent would fall due on 10.09.2014. It had been further provided that during the lock in period, the lease agreement cannot be terminated and if either party seeks to terminate the agreement within the lock in period, then compensation aggregating to the lease rent for the number of unexpired month on the total lease term of 36 months shall be paid. The rent was fixed at Rs.4,50,000/- per month. A security deposit of Rs.45/- lakhs had been paid by the lessee to the lessor. It had also been provided that the Lessor would not terminate the agreement so long as the Lessee continues to pay the monthly rents without default. However, it had also been provided that if there is any breach of the provisions of the agreement, particularly relating to failure of payment of lease rent for a period of more than one month, the Lessor can issue a notice seeking rectification of the breach within a period of 15 days and if such rectification is not done, then the Lessor may terminate the lease without notice and resume possession.

3. Since the background facts relating to the Court proceedings will have to be narrated and the respondent herein was the petitioner who initiated eviction proceedings, to avoid confusion, the parties shall be referred as landlord and tenant. The revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondent herein is the landlord.

4. Originally, the landlord filed R.C.O.P.No.147 of 2016 on the file of the XII Small Causes Court, Chennai. The said Petition was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh Rent Control Petition by order dated 24.01.2017. Thereafter, the landlord again filed R.C.O.P.No.448 of 2017, under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 [the Act], before the XVI Small Causes Court, Chennai. The landlord claimed that the tenant had defaulted in the payment of monthly rents which default extended and stretched beyond the period of adjustment of the security deposit. It was stated that the rent for the month of August 2015 had not been paid. The tenant made a part payment of Rs.2/- lakhs on 07.09.2015 on 22.09.2015. A notice was issued on 11.09.2015 and by a further letter dated 13.10.2015, the tenancy was terminated. An Advocate notice was issued on 18.11.2015. It had been stated that after adjusting the security deposit of Rs.45/- lakhs, the amount due and payable towards rent was Rs.36,50,000/-. Claiming that default to be willful, R.C.O.P.No.448 of 2017 was filed.

5. A counter had been filed by the tenant to the said petition and it had been stated that the rents have been paid periodically and therefore, there was no default as alleged for the months of August, September and October 2015. It had been stated that there had been correspondences between the parties and the legal notice dated 18.11.2015 had been issued without reference to the negotiat