Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1560 (MAD)

P. Thangamani Ammal v. K. Ramachandra Chetty

2014-06-18

P.R.SHIVAKUMAR

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. The tenant is the petitioner in the civil revision petition. The respondent/landlord filed a petition under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the revision petitioner herein/tenant for eviction on the ground of willful default in payment of rent, which was taken on file as RCOP No.1234/2007. The learned Rent Controller (XIV Judge of Court of Small Causes, Chennai) accepted the case of the landlord and passed an order of eviction holding the revision petitioner herein/tenant to have committed willful default in payment of rent and directed her eviction granting two months time for vacating and handing over vacant possession of the petition premises. 2. The revision petitioner herein/tenant preferred an appeal under Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 in R.C.A.No.80/2008 and the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, namely the VII Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Chennai, by his judgment and decree dated 18.09.2003, confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and dismissed the said appeal. Challenging the judgment and decree of the Rent Control Appellate Authority dated 18.09.2003 made in R.C.A.No.80/2008 confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller in RCOP No.1234/2007, the revision petitioner/tenant has filed the present revision under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 on various grounds set out in the grounds of revision. 3. The arguments advanced by Mr.T.Dhanasekaran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant and by Mr.N.Nagusah, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord were heard. The fair and decretal order of the Rent Controller, the judgment and decree of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and other documents available on records sent for from the courts below were also perused. 4. Admittedly, the respondent herein is the owner (landlord) and the revision petitioner is the chief tenant in respect of the petition premises, namely entire building consisting of ground, first and second floors bearing door No.37, Mint Street, George Town, Chennai-79. It is also an admitted fact that, as per the written agreement between the parties, the revision petitioner is entitled to sublet the premises to others and that the revision petitioner has sublet the premises to other persons and is collecting the rents from such sub tenants. It is also an admitted fact that, as per the written agreement between the parties, the revision petitioner is entitled to sublet the premises to others and that the revision petitioner has sublet the premises to other persons and is collecting the rents from such sub tenants. The respondent herein/landlord has made a clear averment admitting that the revision petitioner is entitled to sublet the premises to others as per the agreement entered into by the respondent herein/landlord with the revision petitioner/tenant and that by virtue of such authorisation, the revision petitioner/tenant has sublet the premises and is collecting the rents from the sub tenants. The said averment found in paragraph 3 of the RCOP has been admitted by the revision petitioner/tenant in paragraph 3 of his counter statement. Therefore, it is quite obvious that there are other persons in actual occupation of the petition premises as sub-tenants. 5. It is also an admitted fact that the subletting has been done by the revision petitioner by virtue of the written consent incorporated in the agreement between the respondent herein (landlord) and the revision petitioner (chief tenant). Neither the landlord nor the chief tenant chose to furnish the particulars of the sub-tenants who are occupying the portions of the petition premises. The sub-tenants have not been made parties in the eviction petition filed against the chief tenant (revision petitioner). Even then no plea was taken by the revision petitioner herein/chief tenant to the effect that no eviction order could be passed without impleading the sub-tenants, who are not un-authorised sub-tenants. 6. In none of the sub-clauses of section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 it has been stated that an eviction petition against the chief tenant without making the sub-tenants shall be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties or shall not be maintainable. Perhaps the same was the reason why the revision petitioner/chief tenant has not chosen to take such a plea, as he was very much aware of the legal position that such a plea could not be sustained in law. Section 26 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 reads as follows: “26. Perhaps the same was the reason why the revision petitioner/chief tenant has not chosen to take such a plea, as he was very much aware of the legal position that such a plea could not be sustained in law. Section 26 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 reads as follows: “26. Order under the Act to be binding on sub-tenants:– Any order for the eviction of a tenant passed under this Act shall be binding on all sub-tenants who were made parties in the application for eviction but any person who became a sub-tenant after the date of the application for eviction shall be bound by the order of eviction and be evicted as if he were a party to the proceedings, provided that such order was not obtained by fraud or collusion.” A reading of the said section will show that it does not draw any distinction between authorised and unauthorised sub-tenants. Persons who became sub-tenants subsequent to the filing of the eviction petition are placed on different footing. It says that the second category of sub-tenants (who became tenants after filing of the eviction petition) shall be bound by the order of eviction and they shall be evicted, as if they were parties to the proceedings without being actually made parties to the proceedings, provided such order of eviction was not obtained by fraud or collusion. So, the persons, who became sub-tenants after the filing of the eviction petition, have been given a right to resist the eviction order being executed against them only on the ground that the order was obtained by fraud or collusion. 7. So far as the first category of sub-tenants are concerned, namely persons who became subtenants prior to the filing of the eviction petition, they are per se bound by the order of eviction passed against the chief tenant, provided they were made parties to the application for eviction. The said portion, namely the first part of the provision, may appear to mean that the eviction order on such tenants (those who became sub-tenants prior to the filing of the eviction petition) shall be binding, only if they were made parties to the eviction petition. But, a deep scrutiny of the section will make it clear that the section makes the order binding on all sub-tenants, who were made parties to the eviction petition. But, a deep scrutiny of the section will make it clear that the section makes the order binding on all sub-tenants, who were made parties to the eviction petition. Such sub-tenants, who were made parties, cannot, later on resist the execution of the eviction order. That does not mean that the sub-tenants, who were not made parties to the eviction petition, would not be bound by the eviction order. The said section stands interpreted in a number of cases, as a provision to prevent an order of eviction being obtained behind the back of the said tenants by playing a fraud or pursuant to a collusion between the landlord and the chief tenants. That is the reason why it has been held that the subtenants, who were not made parties to the eviction petition, may resist the execution by making a claim that the eviction order cannot be executed against them, as the same was obtained by fraud or collusion. 8. Apart from the limited defence against the execution, the sub-tenants shall not have any protection against the landlord and the chief tenant, when the landlord obtains an order of eviction against the chief tenant. Once the right of the chief tenant to continue as tenant comes to an end, the protection given to the sub-tenants shall also come to an end. The same was the reason why no plea was taken by the revision petitioner/tenant that the eviction petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as the sub-tenants were not made party respondents. It is also pertinent to note that the same was the reason why the revision petitioner/tenant has not chosen to furnish the particulars of the sub-tenants. 9. Admittedly, the petition premises was let out by the respondent herein/landlord to the revision petitioner herein/tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.4,000/-per month. The respondent herein/landlord and the revision petitioner herein/tenant could not arrive at a consensus regarding the fair rent for the petition premises. Hence the respondent herein/landlord filed a petition under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 in RCOP No.2239/1996 on the file of the Rent Controller praying for fixation of fair rent at Rs.36,713/-per month. The learned Rent Controller allowed the said RCOP and fixed Rs.30,470/- per month as fair rent by an order dated 20.04.1998. The learned Rent Controller allowed the said RCOP and fixed Rs.30,470/- per month as fair rent by an order dated 20.04.1998. Claiming that the amount fixed by the Rent Controller was highly excessive and unjustifiable, the revision petitioner herein/tenant filed an appeal in R.C.A.No.492/1998. The respondent herein/landlord filed an appeal in R.C.A.No.465/1998 expressing grievance regarding the disallowed portion of the claim and seeking fixation of fair rent as claimed in his petition. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, by a common judgment and decretal orders dated 13.09.2004 dismissed the appeal R.C.A.No.465/1998 filed by the respondent herein/landlord, allowed the appeal filed by the revision petitioner herein/tenant, namely R.C.A.No.492/1998 in part and fixed the fair rent at Rs.23,882/-per month. Initially the revision petitioner/tenant did not file any revision against the fixation of fair rent made by the Appellate Tribunal. The respondent herein/landlord alone preferred a revision in C.R.P.No.1291/2005 seeking enhancement of the fair rent. The revision petitioner herein/tenant, after service of notice in the said civil revision petition, failed to contest the same, which resulted in an order being passed on 15.06.2007 by this court allowing the said civil revision petition, setting aside the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.492/1998 and restoring the order of the Rent Controller dated 20.04.1998 made in RCOP No.2239/1996 fixing the fair rent for the petition premises at Rs.30,470/-per month. Pursuant to the order of this court dated 15.06.2007 made in C.R.P.No.1291/2005, the respondent herein/landlord issued a notice on 02.07.2007 calling upon the revision petitioner herein/tenant to pay a sum of Rs.33,88,160/-, being the difference between the contractual rent and the fair rent fixed by the High court for the period from October 1996 to May 2007, within fifteen days. 10. As the demand was not met with, the respondent herein/landlord filed the RCOP concerned in this petition, namely RCOP No.1234/2007 on the file of XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes at Chennai under Section 10(2)(i) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 praying for an order of eviction against the revision petitioner herein on the ground of willful default in payment of rent. The revision petitioner/tenant resisted the petition contending that the eviction petition on the ground of willful default was premature, as the fixation of fair rent had not attained finality. The revision petitioner/tenant resisted the petition contending that the eviction petition on the ground of willful default was premature, as the fixation of fair rent had not attained finality. It was the contention of the respondent herein/landlord before the Rent Controller that since the revision petitioner herein/tenant did not file any revision against the decree of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and on the other hand, the respondent herein/landlord alone preferred a revision, which came to be allowed on 15.06.2007 restoring the order of the Rent Controller fixing the fair rent at Rs.30,470/-per month, the fixation of fair rent had attained finality and the failure on the part of the revision petitioner herein/tenant event after 15.06.2007, the date on which C.R.P.No.1291/2005 was disposed of and even after the receipt of notice demanding payment of the difference between the contractual rent and the fair rent fixed by the court, would, no doubt, amount to willful default making the revision petitioner herein/tenant liable to be evicted under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. 11. On the other hand, it was contended by the revision petitioner herein/tenant before the Rent Controller that the order of the High Court dated 15.06.2007 made in C.R.P.No.1291/2005 was only an ex-parte order; that a civil miscellaneous petition seeking re-hearing of the civil revision petition came to be filed along with a civil miscellaneous petition for condoning the delay in filing such a petition; that the condone delay petition was allowed and the petition for re-hearing of the civil revision petition was pending disposal; that in the said circumstances, the order of the High Court dated 15.06.2007 fixing the fair rent at Rs.30,470/-per month had not attained finality and that the eviction petition filed on the ground of non-compliance with the demand for the payment of the difference between the contractual rent and the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller was premature and that hence the revision petitioner/tenant was not liable to be evicted on the ground of willful default. 12. 12. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, after hearing, took note of the fact that though CMP No.2656/2007 in C.R.P.No.1291/2005 came to be allowed condoning the delay in filing CMP No.2799/2007, the said C.M.P. to set aside the ex-parte order dated 15.06.2007 made in the said civil revision petition and for re-hearing the same, pending; that the order of the High Court dated 15.06.2007 made in the above said C.R.P.No.1291/2005 fixing the fair rent at Rs.30,470/-had attained finality and that the possibility of CMP No.2799/2007 being allowed and the civil revision petition being re-heard could not be taken as a ground for holding the said order to have not attained finality. In line with the above said finding, the learned Rent Controller held that the failure to pay the difference between the contractual rent and the fair rent fixed by the High Court in its order dated 15.06.2007 made in C.R.P.No.1291/2005 would amount to willful default. Accordingly, the learned Rent Controller passed an order of eviction on 6th December 2007. The revision petitioner herein/tenant filed an appeal against the same before the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.80/2008. During the course of the pendency of the appeal, certain developments took place. CMP No.2299/2007 was allowed, the order of this court dated 15.06.2007 made in C.R.P.No.1291/2005 was set aside and the CRP No.1291/2005 was posted for rehearing. Meanwhile the revision filed by the Revision petitioner herein/tenant against the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority seeking reduction of the fair rent came to be numbered as C.R.P.No.4278/2010. Both the revision petitions, namely C.R.P.Nos.1291/2005 and 4278/2010 were jointly heard and this court, by an order dated 14.09.2012 dismissed the revision preferred by the revision petitioner herein/tenant (C.R.P.No.4278/2010) and allowed the revision petition filed by the landlord (C.R.P.No.1291/2005) in part and fixed the fair rent at Rs.26,381/- per month. 13. After the passing of the said order, the revision petitioner herein/tenant sought leave of the Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Civil) Nos.3675 and 3676/2013 to prefer an appeal against the order of this court dated 14.09.2012 made in C.R.P.Nos.1291/2005 and 4278/2010. 13. After the passing of the said order, the revision petitioner herein/tenant sought leave of the Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Civil) Nos.3675 and 3676/2013 to prefer an appeal against the order of this court dated 14.09.2012 made in C.R.P.Nos.1291/2005 and 4278/2010. After this court passed the order dated 14.09.2012 fixing the fair rent at Rs.26,381/-per month, the respondent herein/landlord filed a petition as MP No.483/2012 under Section 11(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 praying for a direction to the revision petitioner herein/tenant to pay a sum of Rs.42,74,771/-as the rental arrears being the difference between the contractual rent and fair rent fixed by the High court and to pay the future monthly rents from month to month at the rate of Rs.26,381/-; with a further prayer to stay all further proceedings in the RCA and order eviction in case of failure on the part of the revision petitioner herein/tenant to comply with such a direction. The special leave petitions came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 01.02.2013. Thereafter on 14.02.2013, an order came to be passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority directing the revision petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.43,86,676/- on or before 28.02.2013 towards the difference between the contractual rent and the fair rent for the period from October 1996 to January 2013. Pursuant to the said order, the entire amount came to be paid and the stay petition was closed on 15.03.2013. 14. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority holding that on the date of service of notice of demand and filing of the RCOP, fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller stood restored by the order of the High Court dated 15.06.2007 made in C.R.P.No.1291/2005 and that the pendency of the miscellaneous petition in CMP No.2299/2007 was not enough to hold that the fixation of fair rent had not attained finality and that the failure on the part of the revision petitioner/tenant to pay the arrears of rent as claimed in the demand notice would amount to willful default. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority relied on the following observations of a learned single judge of this court in Girdharilal Chandak and Bros and others Vs. S.Mehdi Ispahani and others reported in 2011(5) CTC 252 to arrive at such a conclusion that the non-payment of difference in rent would amount to willful default. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority relied on the following observations of a learned single judge of this court in Girdharilal Chandak and Bros and others Vs. S.Mehdi Ispahani and others reported in 2011(5) CTC 252 to arrive at such a conclusion that the non-payment of difference in rent would amount to willful default. "Order 41, Rule 5(1) CPC makes it clear that an appeal shall not operate as a stay of the proceedings under a decree or order appealed from, except so far as the Appellate Court may order. It also makes it clear that the execution of a decree need not be stayed merely by reason of an appeal having been preferred from the decree. As a matter of fact, the explanation to sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of Order 41, goes a step further by stating that even an order granted by the Appellate Court for the stay of execution will be effective only from the date of communication of such order to the Court of first instance. However, it permits the court of first instance even to act upon an affidavit sworn to by the Appellant, to the effect that an Appellate court had stayed the execution of the decree. In other words, the stay is made operative only prospectively." In yet another case in C.Raghunatha Reddy vs. S.Rajasekaran & Others reported in 2011(5) CTC 837, the very same Hon'ble Judge made an observation that the tenant could not contend that the fair rent fixed by the Appellate Authority had not reached finality, merely on account of pendency of a Revision filed by the landlord, when the tenant himself did not prosecute a revision for 10 years, after having filed it belatedly and that in such circumstances to say that the order of the fair rent had not reached finality for 10 years was abnoxious. 15. Relying on the above said observations, without stating how those observations would be applicable to the present case, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority simply concluded that the willful default on the part of the revision petitioner herein/tenant stood proved, as the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in the appeal against the order passed in the fair rent petition was not stayed by the High Court in the civil revision petition preferred before it. The Rent Control Appellate Authority observed further that in the absence of an order of stay granted by the High Court, the landlord was entitled to receive the fair rent fixed by the Appellate Authority. The same was cited as the reason for not interfering with the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. 16. Of course in the precedent first cited above, the learned single judge of this court has stated the position regarding the executability of a decree when no order or stay has been obtained from the Appellate or the Revisional Court. In the second of the precedent cited above, the eviction petition came to be filed on the ground of willful default contending that the difference between the contractual rent and the fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority was not paid as claimed by the landlord. The facts of the case on hand is different from the facts of the said case. In the said case, petition for eviction on the ground of willful default was filed based on the failure of the tenant to pay the fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. In the case on hand, the respondent herein/landlord has claimed payment of arrears of rent on the basis of the order of this court dated 15.06.2007 made in C.R.P.No.1291/2005 fixing the fair rent at Rs.30,470/-. The respondent herein/landlord had not filed the eviction petition on the ground that the non-payment of the difference between the contractual rent and the fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority did amount to willful default. On the other hand, as per demand notice (Ex.P4), the demand was made for the payment of a sum of Rs.33,88,160/- being the difference between the contractual rent and the fair rent fixed by this court in its exparte order dated 15.06.2007 made in C.R.P.No.1291/2005 on the ground that the same had attained finality. The fact remains that during the pendency of the RCOP itself, the revision petitioner herein/tenant had filed CMP Nos.2799/2007 and 2656/2007 respectively for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 15.06.2006 and for re-hearing the CRP No.1291/2005 and along with a petition for condoning the delay in filing the set aside petition. CMP No.2656/2007 came to be allowed and CMP No.2799/2007 was pending. CMP No.2656/2007 came to be allowed and CMP No.2799/2007 was pending. Still the learned Rent Controller chose to hold that no order of stay staying the operation of the order dated 15.06.2007 had been passed and that hence the non-payment of the difference of rent was to be construed as willful default. During the pendency of the appeal there was a further development, namely the order dated 15.06.2007 made in C.R.P.No.1291/2005 came to be set aside and the said CRP was slotted to be re-heard. In addition, revision filed by the revision petitioner herein/tenant for reduction of the fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority was also taken on file as C.R.P.No.4278/2010. Both the CRPs were jointly heard and disposed of by a common order dated 14.09.2012. The result of the said common order was that the revision filed by the tenant was dismissed and the revision filed by the landlord was allowed in part and the fair rent was fixed at Rs.26,381/-. The fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller came to be reduced by the Rent Control Appellate Authority to Rs.23,882/- from Rs.30,470/-. The landlord claimed payment of the enhanced rent fixed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and filed the eviction petition on the premise that such claim was not heeded to. When the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority has not been stayed, then there can be a scope for the landlord to contend that the default could be willful. If at all no stay had been granted, nothing prevented the landlord to take steps for the recovery of the enhanced rent as fixed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 17. On the other hand, the landlord preferred a revision, in which an exparte order came to be passed enhancing the fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Based on such enhanced rent fixed as fair rent by the exparte order dated 15.06.2007 made in C.R.P.No.1291/2005 the demand was made by the landlord and consequent eviction petition came to be filed. After the re-fixation of the fair rent by High Court in its Order dated 14.09.2012 made in C.R.P.Nos.1291/2005 and 4278/2010, the landlord filed a petition under Section 11(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, in which the entire arrears came to be paid within the time granted by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. After the re-fixation of the fair rent by High Court in its Order dated 14.09.2012 made in C.R.P.Nos.1291/2005 and 4278/2010, the landlord filed a petition under Section 11(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, in which the entire arrears came to be paid within the time granted by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Since the eviction petition was filed pleading willful default based on the claim that the rent payable was Rs.30,470/-, whereas the actual rent payable as fair rent came to be fixed subsequently at Rs.26,381/- per month, this court finds it hard to accept the contention of the respondent/landlord that the non-payment of the difference of rent till the disposal of the CRPs would amount to willful default. 18. However, it seems, even after this court passed the final order fixing the fair rent at Rs.26,381/-, the revision petitioner did not make payment of the difference in rent between the contractual rent and the fair rent. The order came to be passed on 14.09.2012. The revision petitioner seems to have contended that the said order of this court did not attain finality, as she had filed special leave petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the order of this court dated 14.09.2012 made in C.R.P.Nos.1291/2005 and 4278/2010. Simply because the tenant proposed to file special leave petitions, the non-payment of the arrears of rent will not become otherwise than willful default. The tenant, who ought to have paid the fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority on 13.09.2004, should have paid the difference between the contractual rent and the fair rent fixed by the Appellate Authority, when she had not filed a revision and she was not able to get an order of stay. Only in 2010 her revision came to be numbered. Therefore, the non-payment of the difference between the fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the contractual rent from 13.09.2004, would, no doubt, amount to willful default, as the revision petitioner/tenant did not get any order of stay and the revision filed by her ultimately came to be dismissed by the High Court. Therefore, the non-payment of the difference between the fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the contractual rent from 13.09.2004, would, no doubt, amount to willful default, as the revision petitioner/tenant did not get any order of stay and the revision filed by her ultimately came to be dismissed by the High Court. In respect of the fair rent fixed by the High Court by its order dated 14.09.2012 made in C.R.P.Nos.1291/2005 and 4278/2010, the revision petitioner/tenant has committed default, as she had not chosen to make payment of the enhanced rent even after the passing of the said order. The rental arrears came to be paid only on 15.03.2013, after a lapse of six months from the date of the order of the High Court. The nonpayment of the enhanced rent, as per the fair rent fixed by the High Court from 14.09.2012 to 15.03.2013 will also amount to willful deault. More so, when the SLPs preferred by the revision petitioner herein/tenant came to be dismissed on 01.02.2013 and even thereafter, the revision petitioner herein/tenant took about 43 days to make payment of the arrears of rent. It should also be noticed that only after the passing of an order in M.P.No.483/2012 in R.C.A.No.80/2008 filed under Section 11(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, the revision petitioner herein/tenant had chosen to pay the arrears fearing that in case of default, further proceedings in her appeal would be stopped and eviction would be ordered. The belated payment of arrears of rent, that too, after passing of the petition under section 11(3) Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, will not make the default not willful, which was otherwise willful. 19. If all these aspects are taken into account, we cannot come to any other conclusion than the one that the revision petitioner/tenant has committed default in payment of rent and such default is nothing but willful. For all the reasons stated above, this court comes to the conclusion that the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority need not be interfered with and the same has got to be confirmed. For all the reasons stated above, this court comes to the conclusion that the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority need not be interfered with and the same has got to be confirmed. Even though the reasons stated by the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority may not be accurate, the ultimate decision arrived at by the Rent Controller and concurred by the Rent Control Appellate Authority holding the revision petitioner/tenant to have committed willful default in payment of rent, has got to be confirmed for the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. The order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller dated 06.12.2007 made in RCOP No.1234/2007 and confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority by its judgment and decretal order dated 18.09.2013 made in R.C.A.No.80/2008 shall stand confirmed. However, the revision petitioner/tenant shall have two months time for vacating and handing over vacant possession, provided an undertaking affidavit is filed within 15 days from today undertaking to vacate and hand over vacant possession within the above said period of two months from today and to continue to make payment of the rent till vacating. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.