A tenant's statutory obligation to pay rent regularly remains intact despite pending proceedings under Section 8(5) for deposit of rent; failure to do so, resulting in accumulation of arrears, constitutes willful default regardless of subsequent lump sum payments.

COMMON ORDER :

N. MALA, J.

(1) Civil Revision petitions are filed against the common judgment in R.C.A. 14 of 2022 and R.C.A. No.6 of 2023.

(2) The parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the H.R.C.O.P Court. The landlord will be referred to as the petitioner and the tenant as the respondent.

(3) The petitioner filed the petition for eviction of the tenant from the demised premises on the grounds of personal occupation and willful default under Section 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960.

(4) The petitioner and the respondent entered into Lease Agreement on20.06.2005, for lease of the demised premises for a monthly rent of Rs.825/-. The respondent also paid an advance of Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner. Thereafter, the lease was renewed from time to time. On 09.06.2012, the parties entered into a fresh Lease Agreement, fixing the monthly rent at Rs.4,000/- and the advance at Rs.1.80 lakhs. The lease period was fixed at 11 months. The Lease Agreement expired on 08.05.2013. On expiry of the lease period, the petitioner asked the respondent to vacate the demised premises since she required the same for setting up a clinic for her daughter, who was pursuing MBBS course. According to the petitioner, the respondent, instead of vacating the premises, stopped paying the rent and started pressurising her to sell the demised premises to him by filing cases. The petitioner states that the respondent assured to vacate the premises and so in order to buy peace, she agreed to adjust the advance amount towards the monthly rent. However, the respondent contrary to his assurance, refused to vacate and so the petitioner issued a legal notice for eviction on 22.03.2017. Despite the receipt of the legal notice on 29.03.2017, the respondent neither replied nor vacated the premises and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file the HRCOP for eviction.

(5) The respondent filed a counter denying the allegation, that he had committed wilful default of rent. The respondent stated that it was he who had filed R.C.O.P. No. 16 of 2014 for deposit of monthly rent and that he had also deposited the arrears of rent for 21 months, of Rs.84,000/- on 01.07.2015. The respondent stated that the petitioner received the said sum without any demur and that she agreed to furnish her bank accounts details for future deposit of rent. The respondent contended that he had not committed any wilful default of rent but it was only on account of the conduct of the petitioner in not furnishing her account details and in not appearing before the Court that the default occurred. The respondent contended that after the ex parte order was set aside by Court, he paid Rs.96,000/- to the petitioner. The petitioner received the same without any protest and signed the receipt acknowledging, the payment. The respondent denied the petitioner’s contention that he pressurized her to sell the demised premises to him. The respondent contended that on the contrary, it was the petitioner who expressed her willingness to sell the property and believing her words, he developed the demised premises by investing considerable amounts. The respondent denied the contention of the petitioner that she required the demised premise for her personal use. The respondent further contended that there were no merits in the petition and the same deserved to be dismissed.

(6) Before the trial court, the petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.P16 were marked on her side. On the side of the respondent, he examined himself as R.W1 and exhibits Ex.R1 to Ex.R26 were marked.

(7) The Rent Control Court, on scrutiny of the entire evidence on record, by order dated 26.08.2022 allowed the eviction petition on the ground of willful default and dismissed it with respect to personal occupation. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control Court, the respondent preferred R.C.A. No.14 of 2022, and the petitioner filed R.C.A.No.6 of