The court established that the failure to renew the lease agreement and the default in payment of rent entitled the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside judgment and decree dated 01.12.2022 passed in RLTA No. 80 of 2022 by the learned VI Additional District Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai(Rent Tribunal) confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the leaned XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, (Rent Control) in RLTOP No. 165 of 2021.)

1. This petition has been filed to set aside judgment and decree dated 01.12.2022 passed in RLTA No. 80 of 2022 by the learned VI Additional District Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai(Rent Tribunal) confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the leaned XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, (Rent Control) in RLTOP No. 165 of 2021.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that he had entered into rental agreement with respondent father on 01.12.1999 for the first shop for a monthly rent of Rs.1,750/- and respondent father received an advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the petitioner. Subsequently, adjacent shop was let out to the petitioner in the year 2004 for monthly rent by the respondent father for which no advance was paid. Accordingly, as on date, rent for the first shop was Rs. 11,700/- and rent for the second shop was Rs. 7,789/-. Since there were two separate tenancies, the first shop was let out for Rs. 11,700/- in the year 1999 and the second shop let out for Rs.7,789/- in the year 2004. Further, the rent were separately paid by the appellants/petitioners. Therefore the respondent ought to have filed two separate petition for eviction of the tenant/appellant from each of the shop portions but the lower appellate court committed error and concluded that respondent entitled for order of eviction in respect of the two shop as such is misconception of law and facts and liable to be set aside. Further he submitted that lease agreeement is in subsistence hence the New Act will not apply to the present case. Further to substantiate his claim the petitioner relied the following judgments.

1. P. Govindasamy Naicker Vs. S.R.Kerwar reported in 1969 II MLJ 452.

2. Umsalma Bibi Vs R.Lakkia Gowder reported in 1967 II MLJ 8277.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that two shops were let out to the tenant, first shop in the year 1999 and the second shop in the year 2004. Further the tenant paid rent for two shops through single Demand Draft. Thereafter the petitioner has defaulted in payment of rent from the month of February 2020 and also not paid Electricity bill. Further, the tenant/petitioner herein paid rent for two shops through single Demand Draft for the purpose of evading the rent control proceedings the tenant raised this plea that there were two different tenancies hence single RLTOP is not maintainable. Further to support his contention he relied the D.D sent by the appellant/petitioner dated 11.08.2022, after filing of the RLTOP proceedings which clearly denotes that he enclosed the cheque for a sum of Rs.10,500/- towards the rental arrears so also he enclosed cheque for the month of September, November and December 2022 and January 2023 upto February 2023 he enclosed a cheque for 10,500/- as rent for two shops such conduct of the tenant appellant herein clearly implies that he always treat tenancy as one and sent the rent through one D.D or through cheque. Even after initiation of RLTOP proceedings, if really tenant treated the tenancy for two shops he should have sent two cheques or D.D. But all these days he used to sent rent through one cheque or one D.D therefore for the sake of arguments now the petitioner raised this plea that two separate application should have filed by the land lord as such is unacceptable one. Another objection raised by the tenant is that first rental agreement entered between the tenant and land lord on 01.12.1999 with regard to first shop which still in subsistence therefore new rent A