@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
G. Rajasuria, J.@mdashThe epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus:
The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder as landlord and tenants. The landlord/the respondent herein, filed the R.C.O.P. invoking Sections 10(2)(1) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, on the ground that the tenants had committed default in payment of rent in respect of the residential premises described in the schedule of the R.C.O.P. The matter was contested.
Up went the trial during which on the landlord''s side, he examined himself as P.W. 1 and Exhibits P-1 to P-5 were marked. On the side of the tenants, Chelladurai, one of the respondents, examined himself as R.W. 1 and no document was marked. The Rent Controller ordered eviction of the tenants as against which R.C.A. was filed which was dismissed, over which the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed on various grounds.
2. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners, placing reliance on the grounds of revision, would submit that earlier there had been one round of litigation and the landlord met with his Waterloo. Even at that time, the tenants started depositing the rent in the Court and in such a case, absolutely there was no necessity at all for the landlord to file this present R.C.O.P., to evict the tenants. It is nothing but vendetta on the part of the landlord as against the tenants to get them evicted by hook or crook. Both the Courts below took note of the fact as though in lumpsum, the rents for the period between August 2001 and March 2002 were paid. As such, interference is necessary by this Court.
3. Per contra, in a bid to torpedo and pulverise the arguments as put forth on the side of the Revision Petitioners, the learned counsel for the landlord would advance his arguments, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus:
The tenants committed default in depositing the rents during the following periods:
1. Between August 2001 and March 2002.
2. Between June 2002 and November 2002.
3. Between February 2003 and June 2003.
4. Between July 2003 and October 2003.
5. Between November 2003 and August 2004.
As such, there were five spells, during which periods the tenants did not deposit the rent and in such a case, there is no other go but to arrive at the conclusion that there was willful default on the part of the tenants in paying the rents. Both the Courts below, adverting to the factual position, concluded correctly that there was willful default in paying the rent warranting no interference by this Court.
The Point:
4. The point for consideration is as to whether both the Courts below are justified in taking into consideration the aforesaid five spells, during which the rents were not paid but they were paid in lumpsums.
5. I would like to rely on the decision of this Court in the case of
6. A mere running of the eye over the precedent cited supra, would highlight and spotlight the fact that if there is lumpsum payment of rental arrears, it can rightly be presumed that there was willful default on the part of the tenants in paying the rent, unless there is valid explanation for such delayed payments. Indubitably and indisputably, during the aforesaid five spells, there were no payments of rent. However, those lumpsum amounts were deposited in Court on five occasions, whereby the tenants glaringly and candidly admitted his willful default in paying the rents and that was sufficient to order eviction. Accordingly, both the Courts correctly arrived at the aforesaid conclusion warranting no interference in Revision.
7. As such, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. On hearing the pronouncement of the order, the learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants would submit that an year''s time may be granted to vacate the premises. However, the learned counsel for the landlord would suggest granting of six months'' time to the tenants to vacate the premises. By way of striking a balance between the two, I would like to grant nine months'' time to vacate the premises, subject to the condition that the tenants shall also pay the arrears if any and the future rents, till they vacate and hand over the premises in favour of the landlord. I also make it clear that the tenants shall vacate the premises on or before 15.8.2013. An affidavit shall also be filed by the tenants to that effect within fifteen days from today.
