Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2220 (MAD)

Nasar v. Venkathasalam

2017-07-26

T.RAVINDRAN

body2017
ORDER : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent / caveator. 2. The tenant, who has lost before the Courts below in the rent control petition, has filed this civil revision petition. 3. It is found that the respondent / landlord preferred the rent control original petition seeking eviction of the petitioner / tenant on two grounds, namely, wilful default and owner's occupation. It is the specific case of the landlord that the petitioner / tenant had not paid the rent from September 2008 onwards and his failure to deposit the rent for the said period is nothing but wilful and hence, he is liable to be evicted on the ground of wilful default. Further, seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of owner's occupation also, the landlord has laid the petition. 4. The tenant has resisted the case of the landlord putting forth that there is no default in the payment of rent and the landlord does not require the premises for his occupation and only as a ploy to vacate the tenant from the property the rent control original petition has been preferred. 5. Based upon the contentions put forth by the respective parties, it is found that on the side of the landlord P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P1 and P2 were marked and on the side of the tenant, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.R1 to R4 were marked. 6. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed by the respective parties, it is found that the Rent Controller has disallowed the eviction petition on the ground of owner's occupation, however, held that the tenant has committed wilful default in the payment of rent from September 2008 onwards knowing very will that he is liable to pay the rent and accordingly, ordered eviction on the ground of wilful default. The appeal preferred by the tenant challenging the same also came to be dismissed. Impugning the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred. 7. The appeal preferred by the tenant challenging the same also came to be dismissed. Impugning the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred. 7. However, on a consideration of the materials placed by the respective parties and also the impugned orders passed by the Courts below, I am of the considered opinion that the Courts below have in detail gone through the rival contentions put forth by the respective parties in accordance with law and also considered the materials placed by the respective parties rightfully and allowed the eviction petition on the ground of wilful default. In such view of the matter, the impugned orders do not call for any interference from this Court. 8. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed. 9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner prays for further time to vacate the property and according to him, if six months time granted that would be sufficient for him to get other premises for his occupation. The learned counsel for the respondent / caveator has no serious objection for the same. Accordingly, six months time is granted to the revision petitioner to vacate the premises.