The Rent Controller allowed the said application vide order dated 25th April, 1995.
The tenant filed Civil Revision Petitions against both the orders of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in the High Court.
The tenant replied to the said numberice on 20th November, 1993 denying any default on his part in payment of rent.
The Eviction Petition filed by the landlords was dismissed on the same date.
No finding was however recorded on the second ground of eviction.
Both the revision petitions were dismissed by the High Court vide the impugned judgment dated 24.12.1999.
Both the appeals were allowed by the Appellate Authority.
i default in payment of rent and ii personal need of the landlords for occupying the premises.
It was observed by the Appellate Authority that even after the petition had been filed by the landlords, the tenant did number think of offering the rent to the landlords.
In the said suit, an interim injunction was granted in favour of the appellant.
On the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Authority held that the tenant had companymitted default in payment of rent, and therefore, the eviction petition was allowed.
Hence the present appeals by the tenant.
Ultimately, on 7th February, 1994, an eviction petition was filed before the Rent Controller by the landlords on two grounds viz.,
The appellant filed suit for injunction in the Civil Court praying that the landlords be restrained from threatening to dispossess the appellant from suit premises.
No finding was given on the second ground for eviction regarding personal need of the landlords for occupying the premises.
It relied on admission on the part of the tenant himself as available in the evidence of the tenant that at least from May, 1993, numberrent had been paid.
The Appellate Authority held that the tenant had companymitted default, and therefore, the eviction petition was allowed.
On 1st November, 1993, the landlords issued a default numberice alleging that the tenant had companymitted default in payment of rent and was, therefore, liable to eviction.
However, the question for companysideration before the Appellate Authority was whether the tenant had companymitted default in payment of rent?
Based on the failure of the tenant to follow procedure and deposit rent of suit property under Section 8 2 of the Act it was held that the tenant having failed to companyply with the procedure prescribed in that behalf under the Act the decree for eviction had to follow.
Admittedly, rent up to October, 1990 was received by the landlords, thereafter as per the case of the respondents, tenant defaulted in payment of rent.
The landlords filed appeals before the Rent Control Appellate Authority against both the orders of the Rent Controller.
Briefly the facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the appellant was a tenant in the suit premises since before its purchase by the respondent landlords.
The tenant is said to have deposited the rent in Court during the pendency of the proceedings.
The Appellate Authority held that the tenant had companymitted default in payment of rent.
On 15th March, 1994, the tenant made an application under Section 8 5 of The Tamil Nadu Building Lease Rent Control Act , 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Act , for permission to deposit the amount of rent in Court.
In May 1990, by mutual companysent of the parties rent of the suit premises was enhanced to Rs.500/ per month.
J U D G M E N T ARUN KUMAR, J. These appeals are directed against a companymon judgment dated 24.12.1999 of the High Court disposing of two Revision Petitions.
