ORDER

The present petition is filed against the decree and judgment dated 19.03.2021 passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Pondicherry in RCA No.2 of 2019 by upholding the decree and judgment of the Rent Controller I, (Full Additional Charge), Pondicherry in HRCOP No.46 of 2013 dated 23.01.2019.

2.The petitioner is the tenant. The suit property mentioned in the petition was owned by the respondent and was rented out to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.5,000/-. The lease was only for a period of 11 months and was for commercial purpose of running a business of electrical and hardware shop. The lease was not further renewed. According to the landlord who filed HRCOP No.46 of 2013 under Section 10 (2) (i) & (ii) (b) and 10 (3) (a) (ii) & (iii) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969 before the Rent Controller I, (Full Additional Charge), Pondicherry, the tenant not only defaulted in payment of rents but also used the premises for a purpose other than the agreed one and the landlord also wanted the premises for his own use and therefore, sought eviction of the tenant. It was also alleged by the landlord that the tenant at one point of time had forged his signature to obtain permission for selling crackers in the shop.

3.The tenant had refuted the allegations made against him and categorically stated that he was regular in payment of rent and that the landlord refused to accept the rents which was offered to him in the form of demand draft and money order. It was also contended by the tenant the rental advance obtained by him was Rs.1,50,000/- and not Rs.50,000/- as claimed by the landlord. The tenant further averred that the electrical and hardware business in the premises has been there since 2007 and prior to that it was a sweet shop and subsequently a hotel and all of these were in the knowledge of the landlord. According to him the trouble arose only when the oral rent of Rs.300/- in 1998 was gradually increased to present rent of Rs.5000/- and there was a demand for enhanced rent of Rs.7,500/-

which the tenant refused to pay.

4.HRCOP.No.46 of 2013 petition was allowed by the learned Rent Controller I, (Full Additional Charge), Pondicherry, vide his orders dated 23.01.2019, on the ground that the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rents. However the petition was dismissed on the other grounds namely owner's occupation, change of use and nuisance.

5.An appeal in RCA No.2 of 2019 was filed before the learned III Additional District Judge, Pondicherry who is also the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority after going through the entire records upheld the findings of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal challenging which the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

6.Heard Mr.Srinivasamurthy learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.E.V. Chandru @ Chandrasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

7.Mr.Srinivasamurthy, learned counsel for the tenant / revision petitioner would contend that there was no default in payment of rents and it was the landlord who despite receiving the rents failed to issue rent receipts. It was also argued that the landlord had never had the habit of issuing rent receipts and that the landlord could have produced the receipt book to show that he was in the habit of issuing rent receipts. It is also his contention a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was held as rental advance by the landlord and in case of any rental arrear he could have adjusted it from the advance.

8.Mr.E.V. Chandru @ Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord on the other side argued that the tenant who claims to have made payments of the rent through demand drafts and money order ought to have proved the same by furnishing more details as to the bank and branch from where the demand drafts were drawn and the mode through which they were sent or returned as claimed in the trial Court. However the xerox copies o