ORDER :

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960, against the Fair and Decreetal order dated 29.09.2022 in R.C.A.No.21 of 2022 on the file of the VIII Small Causes Court, Chennai, confirmed the R.C.O.P.No.211 of 2012 dated 03.01.2022 on the file the XII Small Causes Court, Chennai.

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the Fair and Decreetal order dated 29.09.2022 passed in R.C.A.No.21 of 2022, confirming the order dated 03.01.2022 passed in R.C.O.P.No.211 of 2012.

2. The revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondent / landlord filed R.C.O.P.No.211 of 2012 to evict the tenant on the ground of willful default in payment of Rent, owners occupation and ceased to occupy. The Rent Control Court allowed the R.C.O.P on the ground of willful default in payment of rent for the period from November 2009 to November 2011 and further on the ground ceased to occupy. In respect of the ground of owners occupation, the Rent Controller dismissed the petition. The revision petitioner preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.21 of 2022 and the Appellate Court confirmed the eviction order and thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the Rent Court and Rent Appellate Court have failed to consider the documents filed by the revision petitioner. The letters marked as documents have not been taken into account for the purpose of considering the defence taken by the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner / tenant has proposed to purchase the property and in this regard, a Civil Suit was also instituted by him. When the process for sale is in progress, the respondent / landlord filed the R.C.O.P. for eviction and the letters filed in this regard had not been considered both by the Rent Controller and by the Rent Appellate Court. The rental receipts furnished by the revision petitioner are not considered.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent objected the said contention by stating that willful default in payment of rent was established and further the revision petitioner is not in occupation of the premises leased out and therefore, both the grounds were considered by the Rent Controller and the Rent Appellate Court and the eviction was ordered. That apart, the revision petitioner is in occupation of the premises for several years and the respondent / landlord is struggling to evict the tenant for the past more than 10 years as the litigations are pending before the Rent Controller and the Rent Appellate Court.

5. The findings of the Rent Controller and the Rent Appellate Authority with reference to the facts established between the parties are unambiguous. The consistent findings of the Rent Controller and the Rent Appellate Authority reveals that the jural relationship between the landlord and the tenant is not in dispute. The monthly rent of Rs.7,000/- is also not disputed. It is not disputed that the subject building is not exempted under the provisions of the Act. The Rent Controller and the Rent Appellate Authority considered the documents filed between the parties and elaborately considered the issues.

6. It has been admitted by the revision petitioner/tenant that in the month of October 2011, the husband of the respondent / landlady Mr.A. Radhakrishnan demanded the revision petitioner to vacate the premises. A Civil Suit was filed in O.S.No.8278 of 2011. Thereafter, the monthly rent was not received. The respondent issued legal notice. Subsequently, the tenant sent the monthly rent to the landlady's husband by way of money order after deducting money order charges, which were also refused by him. Thereafter, the revision petitioner / tenant filed R.C.O.P.No.475 of 2012 under Section 8(5) of the Act to deposit the rent to the Court.

7. Pertinently, the respondent / landlady, her husband and Kavignar Su.Ra @ C.S.Rajagham remained exparte in the said R.C.O.P.No.