ORDER

This civil revision petition is filed challenging the concurrent orders of eviction passed against the revision petitioner herein.

2.The facts in brief which are essential for disposing of the above civil revision are as follows:-

(i) One Mubarak, the deceased respondent and the first respondent herein had filed RCOP No.86 of 2006 on the file of the 1st Additional Rent Controller (1st Additional District Munsif Court), Tirunelveli, for evicting the revision petitioner herein on the ground of wilful default and ceasing to occupy the building for over six months. It is their case that the petitioner had been inducted as a tenant on a monthly rental of Rs.675/-. The rents had been paid by him upto February 2004 and thereafter, he has failed to pay the rents. On the date of the filing of the rent control proceedings, the petitioner was in arrears of rent from March 2004 to August 2006 for a period of 30 months to the tune of Rs.20,250/-. That apart, the revision petitioner had closed his business and had ceased to occupy the buildings for over six months.

(ii) The revision petitioner herein had filed a counter contending that he had been inducted as a tenant by Ali Fathimal and Hasanathul Shalika and the petition is totally bereft of details as to how the first respondent and Mubarak claim a right to the suit property.

(iii) The defence was that the revision petitioner was in the habit of paying the rents in a lumpsum. That apart, the revision petitioner had not been served with any notice prior to the institution to the proceedings. The summon issued to him has been received by him on 14.07.2006 stating that the case would be listed on 27.10.2006. The petitioner had paid the entire arrears of rent to the counsel appearing for the said Mubarak and the first respondent herein on 26.10.2006 itself. Therefore, he would contend that there is no wilful default. That apart, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been paid as advance which remains with the earlier landlord. He would also state that after September 2006, he has been paying rents without any default. He would deny the contention that he has ceased to occupy the property.

(iv) The Rent Controller by his order dated 23.02.2012 was pleased to allow the rent control petition only on the ground of wilful default and not on the ground of ceasing to occupy. The Rent Controller had observed that the revision petitioner as R.W.1 had admitted that the monthly rent had to be paid before expiry of the following months and that he had not paid the rent, because the landlord had not come to collect the same. He had however not taken any steps to deposit the rent, though the landlord had not turned up to collect the same. The revision petitioner had questioned the title of Syed Nisha and Mubarak to the demised premises. In answer thereto, Ex.A2, settlement deed, had been produced which shows that the Hasanathul Shalika had executed the settlement in favour of the first respondent herein and under Ex.A1, a release deed had been executed in favour of the Mubarak by his sisters Hasanathul Shalika and Ali Fathimal on 07.04.2002.

(v) The learned Judge, taking into account the fact that the arrears of rent had been paid in a lumpsum, came to the conclusion that the revision petitioner was in default in the payment of rents. The said order was taken up on appeal to the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Sub Court) Tirunelveli in R.C.A.No.25 of 2012. The learned Judge also confirmed the order passed by the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal filed by the revision petitioner herein. The Appellate Authority has also observed that the plea of the revision petitioner that he is in the habit of making a lumpsum payment of the rents, has not been established by him. The failure to pay the rents for 30 months is admitted by reason of the fact that the revision petitioner had paid the money only just before the first date of the hearing.

Aggrieved by this concurrent orders, the revision petitioner