O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition had been filed seeking to set aside the judgment and decree dated 09.07.2019 made in R.C.A.No.673 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judge, VIII Small Causes Court, Chennai confirming the order and decretal order passed in R.C.O.P.No.1322 of 2012, dated 22.09.2014

on the file of the learned Rent Controller/XVI Small Causes Court, Chennai.

2.The brief facts, which are necessary to decide this Civil Revision

Petition, are as follows:-

2.1.The Petitioner is the tenant under the Respondent. The Respondent/

'Chennaivazh Kovilpatti Nadar Uravinmurai Sangam' is registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, having registration No.45 of 1984. The Petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the demised property in the year 1999 on a monthly rent of Rs.1,31,200/-. The Petitioner had been running authorised Maruti Car Service Station in the leased out premises. He had been regularly paying the rent. While so, the President Thiru.L.M.Krishnasamy offered to sell the property to the tenant and they entered into a sale agreement by which the Petitioner/tenant paid a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) as advance as per the sale agreement deed dated 26.09.2007 entered into between the President of the said Sangam and the Petitioner. Subsequently, there had been some misunderstanding between the Office bearers of the said Sangam. Therefore, they filed a suit in O.S.No.1059 of 2008. Due to the misunderstanding, the President of the Sangam who had entered into sale agreement with the Petitioner was removed from the Presidentship of the Sangam. The successor Office-bearers directed the Petitioner to vacate and hand over the possession since there was a dispute between the Office-bearers. The Petitioner had filed a civil suit in C.S.No.23 of 2012 before the Original Side of this Court for specific performance of contract for sale. As per Clause 3 of the sale agreement, full sale consideration had been paid. The successor Office-bearers had instituted R.C.O.P.No.1322 of 2012 as though the Petitioner as tenant had committed willful default. Since he had entered into sale agreement with the landlord and had paid the substantial amount towards sale consideration, the successor Office-bearers had arrived at a conclusion that the Petitioner had not paid rent. They could have adjusted from the amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) lying in the bank account of the said Sangam. Instead, they had instituted R.C.O.P.No.1322 of 2022. The Petitioner sought permission of this Court to deposit the rent into the credit of C.S.No.23 of 2012. As per Clause 3 of the sale agreement, the total consideration was deposited on the Original Side of this Court by the Petitioner. Therefore, he need not pay rent to the landlord. Due to the misunderstanding between the President of the Sangam, who had entered into sale agreement with the Petitioner and other Office-bearers the Petitioner insisted for execution of the Sale Deed and therefore, had filed the Civil Suit in C.S.No.23 of 2012. The successor Office-bearers had instituted the Rent Control Original Petition as though the Petitioner had committed willful default. It is not so. The Petitioner was regular in payment of the rent. Only after entering into the sale agreement, the Petitioner could not pay the rent as there was a misunderstanding between the Office-bearers of the said Sangam. The Petitioner had already deposited the entire balance of sale consideration as per Clause 3 of the sale agreement into Original Side of this Court. Expecting that the dispute between the Office-bearers will be resolved and Sale Deed will be executed in favour of the Petitioner, the Petitioner could not pay the rent. Thiru. Krishnasamy, the then President had entered into the sale agreement because the property was purchased by obtaining loan from REPCO Bank and it was mortgaged. They were unable to repay the loan. In order to release the mortgage, the then President of