The tenant's failure to prove timely payment of rent upheld an eviction order based on landlord's bona fide need.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr.K.Hemakarthikeyan for the petitioner and Mr.R.Sundar for the respondents.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as landlord and tenant.

3. The tenant is the civil revision petitioner.

4. He assails the fair and decreetal order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli in R.C.A.No.29 of 2016, dated 04.12.2025 in confirming the fair and decreetal order of the Rent Controller cum Principle District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli in R.C.O.P.No.92 of 2013, dated 24.08.2016.

5. There is no dispute in the relationship between the parties. One Gnanasekaran, was the original landlord and the civil revision petitioner Murugesan was his tenant. The landlord approached the Rent Controller in 2013, pleading that the tenant, who has to pay a monthly rent of Rs.4,500/- had defaulted in the payment of the same from May 2012 till June 2013. According to him, the arrears came to Rs.63,000/- on the date of presentation of the RCOP. Hence, he sought eviction under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The landlord also projected another ground for eviction, namely, invoking Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. He urged that his daughter is physically challenged and he intends to put up a photostat copying shop for his daughter so that she will earn and carry on her living in a dignified manner. Summons were served on the tenant.

6. The tenant took a stand that he has been in occupation of the premises for more than 12 years from the year 2001. He stated that he has developed his business under the name and style of 'M/s. Radha Metals' and if he were thrown out of the property, he would not find any other accommodation nearby to carry on the business. In addition, he pleaded that he had invested large amounts of money in the shop and that he is willing to pay any reasonable increase of rent that the landlord would seek.

7. He further pleaded that he had tendered the rents to the landlord, but the landlord had refused to receive the same. However, he undertook to clear the arrears of rent from May 2012 to June 2013, in case, the landlord is ready to receive it. He added that for the period May 2013 and June 2013, he paid the rents by way of electronic money orders. Yet, the landlord in order to generate a cause of action for filing the eviction petition, did not receive the same.

8. He further stated that he had issued a lawyer's notice on 02.08.2013 stating that in case the landlord continues with his attitude of not receiving the rent, he will file an appropriate application for deposit of the rents before the Courts below. Acting on the said notice, he had also presented a petition under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 in R.C.O.P.No.180 of 2013.

9. The tenant also urged that fearing forcible dispossession from the property, he had presented a suit before the Vacation Judge at Tiruchirapalli in O.S.No.43 of 2013, which stood transferred, to the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchirapalli and renumbered as O.S.No.637 of 2013.

10. On the basis of the petition and counter, the parties went for trial. On the side of the landlord, he produced Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. On the side of the tenant, he produced Ex.R1 to Ex.R20.

11. The learned Principal District Munsif cum Rent Controller found that the tenant had defaulted in payments of rent and that the bonafide purpose projected by the landlord deserves consideration. In particular, he relied upon Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 as well as Ex.P9 to conclude that the d