ORDER

It is apt to begin the order with the words of the Honourable Supreme Court, while describing the role of an Advocate, in R.Muthukrishnan Vs. The Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Madras.

"40. ... A lawyer is supposed to be governed by professional ethics, professional etiquette and professional ethos which are a habitual mode of conduct. He has to perform himself with elegance, dignity, and decency. He has to bear himself at all times and observe himself in a manner befitting as an officer of the Court. He is a privileged member of the community and a gentleman. He has to mainsail with honesty and sail with the oar of hard work, then his boat is bound to reach to the bank. He has to be honest, courageous, eloquent, industrious, witty and judgmental".

2. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.45 of 2108 in R.C.O.P.No.2 of 2018, dated 29.03.2019, on the file of the Rent Controller/District Munsif, Madurai Taluk, Madurai, filed under Order 11(2) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties hereinafter will be referred as per their ranking / status before the trial Court.

4.The revision petitioner is the respondent/tenant. The respondent/landlord has filed the petition in R.C.O.P.No.2 of 2018 against the revision petitioner under Section 10(2) (i) and 10(2) (ii) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') for eviction.

5.Admittedly, the petition mentioned building is owned by the petitioner and he is a retired Principal of Mepco Engineering College, Sivakasi and that the respondent is a practicing Advocate of this Court. It is admitted by both the parties that both of them had entered into an oral tenancy agreement on 01.04.2007. But according to the petitioner, the ground floor of the petition mentioned building was only leased out to the respondent and that the monthly rent was fixed at Rs.3,000/- . It is the case of the respondent that monthly rent was fixed at Rs.2,400/- and that he had paid an advance amount of Rs.50,000/-.

6.The petitioner's main contention is that the respondent has not paid the rent since the commencement of tenancy from 01.04.2007, that the respondent has also occupied the first floor of the petition mentioned building without the consent of the petitioner illegally, that even after the expiry of tenancy period and despite the repeated demands of the petitioner, the respondent has not paid the arrears of rent, that the respondent has forged the signature of the petitioner and applied to the TNEB and got electricity connection for the petition mentioned building without the consent and knowledge of the petitioner, that the petitioner has given a complaint to the District Crime Branch Police and on that basis FIR came to registered in Crime No.97 of 2013 against the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 406, 419, 468, 471, 420 and 506(1) IPC and that since the respondent had defaulted in payment of rent willfully and occupied the first floor of the petition mentioned building unauthorisedly, the petitioner was constrained to file the above eviction petition. The respondent has filed his counter statement raising so many defences and was contesting the eviction petition.

7.Pending eviction petition, the petitioner has filed the above petition under Section 11(2) of the Act, seeking direction to the respondent to pay the admitted arrears of rent for the period between 01.04.2007 and 30.11.2018. The respondent has filed the counter statement reiterating the contentions raised in the main counter statement and are listed below for better understanding:

(i) The petition mentioned premises has not been notified by the Government under Section 1(2)(a) and (b) of the Act on the date of the inception of tenancy or on the date of cause of action arose for filing the eviction petition and as such the said Act is not applicab