In the petition filed by the respondent under Section 10 (2) (1) of the Tamilnadu Lease and Rent Control Act, the following are stated -
The respondent is tenant under this petitioner for a monthly rent of Rs.325/-. From April 1996 onwards, he has not paid the rent upto December 1996. The arrears of rent is Rs.2,925/-. On 25.12.96, the respondent sent a notice requesting the landlord to effect some repairs. Afterwards, on 08.01.97, he sent a demand draft for Rs.325/- for a month's rent which was refused by the petitioner on 09.01.97. On 10.01.97, this petitioner sent a notice requiring the respondent to pay the arrears of rent. Even then, he did not pay and hence the petition has been filed for eviction under the ground of wilful default.
2.In the counter filed by the respondent/tenant, the following are stated -
This respondent has paid Rs.5,000/- as advance. From April 1998 onwards, the respondent has been tenant under him. He had been paying the rent every month without any default. The landlord has not issued any receipts, but he is passing receipts to other tenants. On 07.12.96, he paid the rent for November '96. This respondent requested the landlord to effect repairs in the portion which is in his possession for which the reply notice was sent to him with false particulars. On 07.01.97, this respondent sent one month rent through demand draft but it was refused by the landlord. He also sent notice requiring the landlord to specify a Bank. However, the landlord sent a reply notice with incorrect particulars. It is false to state that the respondent was in arrears of Rs.2925/-. For the months of February and March 1997, he sent demand draft towards two months rent which was also refused by the landlord. Taking advantage of non-issuance of receipts, the petitioner has filed this eviction petition. Hence, the petition has to be dismissed.
3.Both the fora below found out that this petition is in wilful default in payment of rent from April to December 1996. Hence, this petition is before this Court.
4.It is stated that on 25.12.96, this petitioner sent a notice to the respondent for effecting some repair work in the building but it was not taken care of by the landlord. However, on 07.01.97, this petitioner sent a demand draft for Rs.325/- for a month which was refused by the landlord. On 10.1.97, this respondent sent a reply notice stating that there was default from April to December 1996, totalling to Rs.2975/- and another notice was also issued by the landlord in February 1997.
5.The learned cousnel for the petitioner Mr.R.Subramanian laboured hard by describing that the petitioner was not at all in arrears and that he did not commit any wilful default. It is his contention that the oral evidence of the landlord would go to show that there was no default, much less wilful default on the part of this petitioner. In the cross examination, this respondent, as P.W.1 would state that it is incorrect to state that he was not in the habit of passing the receipts for payment of rent and that there was no wilful default.
6.It is also contended by him that he does not give any receipts but there is arrears of rent. In the chief examination, he has stated that the tenant has not been paying the rent regularly and since he committed the wilful default, he filed the eviction petition. It is his response that since the amount paid through demand draft was for rent towards one month, he did not receive because there was arrears of rent for nine months.
7.In this connection, another portion of his oral evidence would show that there might have been default in payment of rent for one or two months and at present there is no such default and earlier to the filing of the petition, tenant was paying the rent regularly.
8.It is noteworthy that in the cross-examination, the petitioner has admitted that from 12.4.97, there has been default in payment of twenty four (24) months rent and that the defaulted payment is about Rs.8,000/-, that he has not taken any steps to deposit the rent into the Court, that from April to December 1996, there was no default and that it is incorrect to say that he did not pay the rent afterwards. The above said portion of his oral evidence would clearly indicate that subsequent to the filing of the eviction petition, the petitioner had not paid any rent nor had he taken any steps to file any application under Section 85 for the deposit of rent before the Rent controller.
9.The learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1989 (1) L.W. 155 [Durgai Ammal v. R.T.Mani (Mad.)] wherein it is observed that when a landlord refuses to receive the rent sent by the tenant, it is his fault and he cannot specifically say that the tenant has not exercised his right given under Section 8 and there fore he must be taken to have committed wilful default.
10.Responding to this, the learned counsel for the respondent Mr.T.V.Krishnamachari would garner support from a decision of this Court reported in 2007 (2) CTC 472 [J.V.Bhoopalan v. Rajamanickammal and Ors.] wherein this Court has held that when the tenant alleges that the landlord refused to receive rent and he was forced to deposit rent into Court, the tenant should meticulously follow the procedure enumerated under Section 8 to deposit rent and he is not entitled to benefits under Act if he does not follow the procedure to deposit the rent.
11.Pointing out the conduct of the petitioner in not paying the rent for several months after filing of the eviction petition, the learned counsel for the respondent would rely upon a decision of this Court reported in 2007 (2) CTC 127 [Kannadasan V. v. K.Swaminatha Pathar] in which it is observed that where tenants are not regular in paying rents during pendency of proceedings, the conduct will amount to wilful default and such subsequent conduct of tenants can be taken into account in ordering eviction and deciding the matter. For this preposition, this Court has also referred and followed an earlier decision of this Court reported in 1998 (3) CTC 467 [Vasantha Leela v. Vadivelu Cheettiar]. In the said case, it has been observed that the tenant was aware of the legal consequences of his omission to pay rent. Therefore, he ought to have been more careful. Inspite of it, he has not chosen to pay the rent which would only indicate that he has been supinely indifferent and callous in attitude and therefore any default committed by the tenant in this context can be nothing but wilful default within the meaning of the Act.
12.At the first sight, there had been wilful default on the part of the petitioner in payment of rent from April to December 1996. Had he been cautious enough, he should have taken steps contemplated under the provisions of the Rent Control Act and filed petition under Section 8 (5) of the Act. Next is the indifference in payment of rent for twenty four (24) months after the filing of the eviction petition, which would also amount to wilful default and it is admission too.
13.In the above circumstances, there is no valid ground to disturb the concurrent findings recorded by both the fora below and the orders passed by them deserve to be confirmed and are accordingly confirmed.
14.In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Time for delivery three months from this date.
rgr To The Rent Controller, Kancheepuram