IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE : 31.01.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN CRP.(NPD).No.1976 of 2003 G.A.Ponnusamy .. Petitioner/Appellant/ Respondent Vs. N.Santhanam .. Respondent/Respondent/ Petitioner Prayer:- This revision petition has been preferred under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act against the order dated 21.08.2003 in RCA.NO.1 of 2002 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, (Rent Control Appellate Authority), Gobichettipalayam, confirming the order in RCOP.No.4 of 2000 dated District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam, (Rent Controller). For Petitioner : Mr.S.V.Jayaraman, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.T.Duraisamy For Respondent : Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy, Advocate ORDER This revision has been preferred by the tenant in RCOP.No.4 of 2000 on the file of the Court of District Munsif (Rent Controller), Gobichettipalayam. The said RCOP was filed under Section 10(2)(1) and 10 (3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (herein after referred to as 'the Act'). 2.According to the respondent/landlord, on the date of filing of the RCOP a sum of Rs.3,250/- is the arrears of rent due for the months of March, April and May - 2000. According to the tenant he had carried out repairs in the building to the tune of Rs.15,000/- and that he had adjusted the rent towards maintenance charges borne by him for carrying out the repair works of the said building in the year 1992. The landlord has required the building for personal occupation ie. for his adopted son to conduct a business in the building. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.Before the learned Rent Controller, the petitioner has examined himself as P.W.1 and exhibited Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and the respondent has examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R.1 was marked. After going through the evidence both oral and documentary the learned Rent Controller has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for and accordingly allowed the application giving a months time to the respondent to vacate and handover the vacant possession. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Rent Controller, the tenant/revision petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA.No.1 of 2002. The Rent Control Appellate Authority finding no material for interfering with the findings of the learned Rant Controller has dismissed the appeal granting one month further time for vacating and handing over the vacant possession of the petition scheduled building. Aggrieved by the findings of the Rent Control Appellate Authority the present revision has been preferred by the tenant. 4.Heard the learned senior counsel Mr.S.V.Jayaraman appearing for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy appearing for the respondent and considered their respective submissions. 5.The learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that the petition under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act is not maintainable on the ground that the petitioner requires the petition schedule premises for the use of his adopted son, but the adoptation itself is not valid under law. Whether the adoptation is valid or not is not the point to be considered in a rent control proceedings. Whether the impugned building is required for the personal occupation of the petitioner or not alone is to be gone into in a rent control proceedings. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that apart from the impugned building the landlord is not owning any other non-residential building of his own and that the petitioner's adopted son required the impugned building for starting his business. It is the admitted fact that only at the time of admission of his CRP in the year 2003 as per the direction of this Court the arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.3,750/- was deposited by the revision petitioner to the credit of RCOP.No.4 of 2000. The stand taken by the tenant that he had spent Rs.15,000/- towards maintenance of the building right from the year 1992 has not been substantiated by any documentary evidence as rightly observed by the Courts below. It is settled law that if the tenant committed any default in payment of rent even during the pendency of RCOP that is to be construed as willful default. In this case even till the filing of the revision petition before this Court the revision petitioner has not paid the rent amounting to Rs.3,250/-, will derive us to an unassailable conclusion that the revision petitioner has committed willful default in payment of rent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6.The ratio decidendi relied on by the learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in 2002(1) CTC 487 (JJ.Lal Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. M.R.Murali and another), will not be applicable to the present facts of the case because in the said case it was proved by the tenant that the landlord himself had stated that he will be collecting the rent once in two months and that no notice was issued by the landlord to the tenant demanding the arrears of rent and that non-payment of rent in respect of the one premises for one month and another premises for two months, held by the Honourable Apex Court as connot be considered as a willful default. But that is not the case on hand. Even in the notice - Ex.P.1 the landlord has clearly stated that the tenant is continuously defaulted in payment of rent i.e, the rent due for the period from 1.8.1990 to 29.2.2000, which amounting to Rs.8,250/-. But the tenant has paid only Rs.2,000/- on 20.4.1999 and Rs.3,000/- on 4.9.1999 and thereafter he has committed default in payment of arrears of rent of Rs.3,250/- Even after the said notice, the tenant has not chosen to pay the rent even during the pendency of neither RCOP nor RCA. But the tenant has paid the said arrears of rent only after the direction given by this Court in this CRP. The only defence taken in the reply notice - Ex.P.1 is that the revision petitioner/tenant had spent Rs.15,000/- towards repair charges. But as I have already stated that there is absolutely no material placed before the learned Rent Controller to show that the tenant had spent Rs.15,000/- towards repairing the building. Further, against the concurrent findings of the Courts below this Court exercising the revisional jurisdiction cannot go into the facts of the case unless it is shown that the findings of the Courts below is perverse in nature and the findings have been arrived at without any evidence. Further, absolutely there is no material placed before this Court to show that the Courts below have rendered a perverse finding. Under such circumstance, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA.No.1 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam. 7. In fine, the Revision is dismissed confirming the findings of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA.No.1 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam. No costs. Time for vacating and handing over vacant possession to the landlord is two months from this date. Letter of undertaking to be filed within one week. ssv Sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To, 1.The Principal Subordinate Judge, (Rent Control Appellate Authority) Gobichettipalayam. 2.The District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam.(Rent Controller) 3.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras +1 cc to Mr.R.T.Doraisamy, Advocate Sr.No.4585. +1 cc to Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy, Advocate Sr.No.4572. ASM(CO) DCP/1.2 CRP.(NPD).No.1976 of 2003 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/