1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1052 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 S.Lakshmanan .. Petitioner/Tenant Vs. S.Narayani .. Respondent/Landlady Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the fair and decretal order dated 13.12.2010 passed in Rent Control Appeal No.5 of 2010 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Principal Sub Court, Nagercoil confirming the fair and decretal order dated 23.12.2009 passed in R.C.O.P.No.39 of 2004 by the Rent Controller/Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil. For Petitioner : Mr.M.P.Senthil For Respondent : Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram ORDER The concurrent orders passed in R.C.O.P.No.39 of 2004 by the Rent Controller/ Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil and in Rent Control Appeal No.5 of 2010 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Principal Sub Court, Nagercoil are being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The revision petitioner herein as petitioner has filed R.C.O.P.No.39 of 2004 on the file of the Rent Controller on the grounds of wilful default and for own use and occupation, wherein the present revision petitioner has been shown as respondent/tenant. 3. The Rent Controller after considering the available evidence on record has allowed the petition on the ground of wilful default in paying monthly rent. Against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, the respondent/tenant as appellant has preferred Rent Control Appeal No.5 of 2010 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Rent Control Appellate Authority after hearing both sides and upon reappraising the evidence available on record has dismissed Rent Control Appeal No.5 of 2010 and thereby confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. Against the concurrent orders passed by the authorities below, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/respondent/tenant has strenuously contended that the specific case of the respondent/petitioner/landlord is that from January, 1990, the revision petitioner/ respondent/tenant has failed to pay monthly rent and the specific evidence of the respondent/ petitioner/landlord is that she is not in the habit of giving rental receipt and under the said circumstances the contentions urged on the side of the respondent/petitioner/landlord with regard to wilful default is not correct and the authorities below have failed to look into it and therefore the concurrent orders passed by the authorities below on the ground of wilful default are liable to be interfered with. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/petitioner/landlord has contended that from January, 1990, the revision petitioner/respondent/tenant has failed to pay monthly rent and under the said circumstances the present petition has been filed on the ground of wilful default and the authorities below after considering the available evidence on record have rightly rejected the defence taken on the side of the revision petitioner/respondent/tenant and therefore the concurrent orders of eviction passed by the authorities below do not warrant interference. 6. It is seen from the evidence that from January, 1990, the revision petitioner/ respondent/tenant has failed to pay monthly rent and thereby he committed wilful default in paying monthly rent. The authorities below have also concurrently found that the revision petitioner/ respondent/tenant has committed wilful default in paying monthly rent. Under the said circumstances, the contention urged on the side of the revision petitioner/respondent/tenant is not bona fide and altogether the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs and the concurrent orders passed by the authorities below are confirmed. However the revision petitioner/respondent/tenant is given seven months time to vacate the demised building. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assitant Registrar(T&P) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Rent Control Appellate Authority/ Principal Sub Court, Nagercoil. 2.The Rent Controller/ Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil +One cc to Mr.P.Senthil, Advocate, SR.No.38289 smn rl/4c – 25.11.2011 C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1052 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 04.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/