P.Sivachandran v. M.P.Purushotham

5.The respondent/appellant/petitioner/landlord aggrievedagainst the orders of the learned Rent Controller passed inR.C.O.P.No.1148 of 2001 dated 04.02.2002 has preferredR.C.A.No.1108 of 2002 before the learned Appellate Authorityviz., 7th Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai and the learnedAppellate Authority viz., 7th Judge, Court of Small Causes,Chennai in his order dated 21.07.2003 has allowed the appeal,granting two months time for eviction to the Civil RevisionPetitioner/tenant.6.According to the learned counsel for the revisionpetitioner/tenant, the learned Appellate Authority viz., 7thJudge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai has failed to notethat the respondent/landlord/petitioner filed R.C.O.P.No.1148 of2001 on the ground of wilful default in regard to the payment ofthe difference in agreed rent and the fair rent as per the orderpassed in R.C.A.No.607 of 1996 dated 29.06.2001 and stayed byHon'ble High Court in C.R.P.No.285 of 2001 dated 27.03.2002 andadmittedly when the stay was in force, the learned AppellateAuthority erred in ordering eviction by enforcing the order ofincrease in Fair Rent in R.C.A.No.607 of 1996 dated 29.06.2001and when the civil revision petitioner intended to file arevision as per the reply notice dated 12.07.2001, no WilfulDefault will arise as per decision 1996(2) L.W. Page 849.7.It is the further case of the revision petitioner/ tenantthat the learned Appellate Authority has not taken intoconsideration the evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1 and the admittedfact is that RCOP petition was filed by the tenant for deposit ofrent under Section 8(5) of the TN Buildings (Lease and Rent)Control Act, 1960. A further plea is taken on the side ofrevision petitioner/tenant that the learned Appellate Authorityerred in not taking into consideration the fact that the rentcontrol petition was filed on 25.07.2001, though notice dated05.07.2001 was issued claiming the difference in agreed rent andthe fair rent, without waiting for two months time to expire, asper decision 2000 TLNJ Page 24 and therefore, the revisionpetitioner prays for allowing the revision petition.8.The case of the respondent/appellant/petitioner/ landlordis that earlier he filed R.C.O.P.No.333 of 1994 on the file of XICourt of Small Causes, Chennai praying for the fixation of fairrent of Rs.2000/- per month as against the agreed monthly rent ofRs.500/- and in the said rent control proceedings, the monthlyrent was fixed as Rs.1220.41 by the learned Rent Controller on10.01.1996 and R.C.A.Nos.607 and 1556 of 1996 were preferred byboth parties as against the orders passed by the learned RentController in the said RCOP proceedings and in R.C.A.No.607 of1996 filed by the respondent/landlord, the learned AppellateAuthority re-fixed the fair rent at Rs.1453/- and dismissed the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ R.C.A.No.1556 of 1996 preferred by the revisionpetitioner/tenant.9.In pursuance of the orders passed in R.C.A.No.607 of 1996in R.C.O.P.No.333 of 1994 dated 29.06.2001, therespondent/landlord/petitioner issued a notice dated 05.07.2001to the revision petitioner/tenant claiming a sum of Rs.20,933/-in respect of the difference in rent for the period January 1994and June 2001 and with a further request that the revisionpetitioner/tenant is to pay the revised fair rent of Rs.1453/-per month in future. However, the civil revisionpetitioner/tenant sent a reply on 17.07.2001 mentioning that thefair rent order has not reached finality and that the civilrevision petition is to be filed against the orders passed inRCA.10.The substance of the case of therespondent/landlord/petitioner is that the revisionpetitioner/tenant has withheld a sum of Rs.20,933/-, being thedifference in rent (between the fair rent of Rs.1220.41determined in R.C.O.P.No.333 of 1994 and the revised fair rent ofRs.1453/- fixed in R.C.A.No.607 of 1996) and therefore, inspiteof the notice dated 05.07.2001 issued by the respondent/landlord,the revision petitioner/tenant has willfully and wantonly notpaid the rental arrears and thereby committed wilful default.11.Per contra, the stand of the revision petitioner/tenantis that R.C.O.P.No.1148 of 2001 is not maintainable in lawbecause no cause of action has arisen in the matter in issue andthat a suitable reply dated 17.07.2001 was issued by the revisionpetitioner/tenant to the lawyer notice dated 05.07.2001 issued bythe respondent/landlord stating that the civil revision petitionis to be filed by the revision petitioner/tenant and that therevision petitioner/tenant tendered the rent for July 2001 whichwas refused on 08.08.2001 and again on 10.08.2001, July 2001 rentwas sent by cheque with a covering letter, which was returnedalong with a reply notice dated 13.08.2001 and once again therent was sent by money order which was accepted but returned by aletter dated 24.08.2001 enclosing a pay order and pendingcorrespondence the RCOP petition was filed on 25.07.2001 and thatthe agreed rent for the period from July 2001 and August 2001 wastendered in addition to the memo filed and therefore, there is nowilful default committed by the revision petitioner/tenant.12.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenantrelied on the decision 1996 [2] L.W. 849, between J.VISALAKSHI V.T.B. SATHYANRAYANA, wherein it is held as follows:"Tamilnadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control Act[18 of 1960], Ss.11[4] and 10[2][i]-Differencebetween agreed rent and fair rent held, is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ arrears and payable when order fixing fair rentbecomes final – Right of landlord to issue noticeof 15 days from last day of that tenancy monthdemanding arrears, and failing compliance toinstitute proceedings under S.10[2][i] – Notnecessary for landlord to go to civil Court torecover such arrears – 100 l.W. 708 and 709 TLNJ270 overruled."13.The learned counsel for therespondent/landlord/petitioner cited 1998-TNLJ 165, betweenM/S.PRAKASH PHARMACY, REP.BY ITS PARTNERS & OTHERS V.C.THIRUPURUSUNDARI AND ANOTHER wherein at page 167 it is held asfollows:"...A reading of Sec.23[4] of the Act, it isclear that the decision of the appellateauthority is final. However, an opportunity orright is granted to the aggrieved person tochallenge the said order in the High Court. Butthe object in enacting Sec.23[4] of the Act is togive a finality at the appellate stage itself,otherwise, there is no necessity to enact Sec.23[4] of the Act. If we view that finally would bereached after the Civil Revision Petition isdisposed of as per section 25, then section 23[4]becomes redundant and unnecessary.Normally, the Court has to take a provisionas it stands and has to construe the objectbehind it. The interpretation should be to givea meaning to it and not to discard it. It isalso to be presumed that when a provision isincluded in an enactment, the Legislature hasdone it with a purpose or object. Only when wegiven an interpretation that a finality in theRent Control proceedings is reached after theappeal stage, there will be a meaning to theSection."At page 168, it is held thus:"...It is no doubt true that the order passed bythe Rent Controller would be final andconclusive, when the revisions authority passedthe order. But, we should remember that thereare also consequential remedies provided againstthe orders of the Tribunal and the courts.Therefore, the finality in its proper sense shallbe only when the final Court of the Country orthe Nation gives its verdict." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

14.The learned counsel for the respondent/landlord alsorelied on the decision 1999 [1] CTC 221 between T.ESWARA RAO V.N.E.ANSARI [DECD] AND SIX OTHERS wherein it is held thus: "Tamil Nadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control]Act, 1960, Sections 8 and 10[2][i]- Wilfuldefault – Mere attempt to send rent by Moneyorder without taking further steps to depositrent into court under section 8 would amount towilful default – Tenant is liable to be evicted.Tamil Nadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control]Act, 1960, Section 10[2][i] proviso – Purpose ofincorporation – Purpose is to give opportunity totenant whose default was found to be not wilfulto pay rent within 15 days – Condition precedentfor invoking proviso is that Rent Controllershould come to conclusion that tenant's defaultwas not wilful.Tamil Nadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control]Act, 1960, Section 10[2][i] – Deposit of rent onfirst date of hearing – Tenant did not pay rentfor more than one year inspite of noticedemanding rent – Landlord filing petition foreviction on ground of wilful default – Tenantdepositing unpaid rent on first date of hearingand pleading that in view of this deposit,default cannot be construed as wilful – Plea oftenant negatived – Accepting such submissionamounts to rewriting provisions of Enactment –Merely because tenant deposits arrears of rent onfirst date of hearing, it cannot be said thatlandlord cannot sustain petition for eviction ifit is otherwise established that tenant committedwilful default in payment of rent – Such deposithas to be considered along with other factors todecide whether default is wilful or not."15.For the proposition of wilful default, the learnedcounsel for the respondent/landlord pressed into service 1999[III] CTC 199 between MAJESTICE LEATHERWARE REP.BY ITS PROPRIETORS.M.MAHBOOB BASHA, CHENNAI-3 V. GOVINDA CHETTY wherein it is heldas follows:-"Tamil Nadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control]Act, 1960, Section 10[2][i] – Wilful Default –Payment of monthly rent punctually is statutoryobligation – Any default in payment of rent bydue date makes tenant defaulter – Tenant pleadingthat non payment of rent for more than two years https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was due to demand made by landlord for enhancedrent – No evidence for such plea – Tenant did notsend rent by money order or initiate proceedingsunder Section 8[5] – Both authorities found thatdefault was wilful – Concurrent findings byAuthorities – No irregularity, illegality orimpropriety in the order of authorities –Revisional Court upheld order of eviction onground of wilful default.Tamil Nadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control]Act, 1960, Section 10[2][i] – Explanation WilfulDefault – Notice demanding arrears of rent –Necessity of such notice to initiate proceedingsfor eviction on ground of wilful default – Issueof notice by landlord to tenant demanding arrearsof rent before initiating eviction proceedingsfor wilful default is not mandatory or legalregiment – Issue of notice will only enablepresumption of wilful default to be drawn againstTenant – Even where no notice was issued it isopen to Rent Control Authorities to hold defaultas wilful taking into consideration conduct oftenant."He also relied on the decision reported in 2000 [II]CTC 577 between K.M.MUNEERUDDIN AND 4 OTHERS V. P.M.PUNNOOSEwherein it is observed as follows:-"Tamil Nadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control]Act, 1960, Sections 8[5] and 10[3] – WilfulDefault – Money order sent by tenant refused byLandlord – Tenant should initiate proceedingsunder section 8[5] after calling up landlord tospecify Bank in which rent could be deposited –Mere attempt to send rent by money order withouttaking steps to deposit would constitute wilfuldefault – Tenant failed to deposit rent on firstdate of hearing and paid it after more than oneyear – Once tenant admits default he has to provethat it was not wilful.Rent Control Law – Wilful Default – Burden ofproof – Once tenant admits default he has toprove that it was not wilful."16.On the side of the respondent/landlord/petitioner,reliance was placed on the decision reported in 2001 [3] CTC 313between M.K.MUKUNTHAN V. M.PASUPATHI wherein it is held asfollows:"Tamil Nadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control]Act, 1960, Section 10[2][i] – Wilful default – https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tenant failing to pay rent immediately oninception of tenancy and committed default for 12months – Landlord living in same building and yettenant sent money order representing rent for 3months with knowledge that landlord was away toattend funeral of his mother-in-law – Money orderreturned as addressee not found – Tenant sentnotice and landlord did not send reply – Tenantfailing to take any further steps – Tenantcommitted wilful default – Order of evictionsustained and confirmed.Tamil Nadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control]Act, 1960, Section 7 and 10[2][i] – Tenant payingan advance of Rs.3000 and agreed to pay monthlyrent of Rs.300 and committed default in paymentof rent for 12 months amounting to Rs.3600 – Evenafter adjusting advance of Rs.3000 tenant has notpaid rent for two months – Ground for wilfuldefault made out."17.The learned counsel for the respondent/landlord drew theattention of this Court to the decision 2002 [1] CTC 631 betweenIRENE V. V.S.VENKATARAMAN AND ANOTHER wherein it is observed asfollows:"Tamil Nadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control]Act, 1960, Section 10[2][ii][a] and [b] and 10[3][c[ - Eviction sought by Trust on ground ofunauthorised sub-letting, change of user andrequirement of landlord for additionalaccommodation – First floor is in occupation oflandlord – Ground floor is in occupation oftenant who is a foreigner – While tenant goes outof country, tenanted premises is under the careof representative of tenant, a care-taker, driverand watchman who occupy premises during absenceof tenant from the country – Rent Controller andAppellate Authority held that premises inoccupation of employees of tenant to look aftertenancy premises when tenant is away in foreigncountry do not amount to sub-letting –Authorities also negative the plea of landlordregarding change of user since premises was usedonly for residential purposes – Requirement onground of additional accommodation was heldagainst landlord as premises in occupation oflandlord was not proved or be inadequateinsufficient for requirement of landlord –Concurrent findings of Rent Controller andAppellate Authority were set aside by High Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in revision and order of eviction was passedagainst tenant – On appeal held that High Courtwas wrong in holding that occupation of tenantedpremises by servants when tenant was away inforeign country amounted to sub-letting – Suchoccupation does not amount to sub-letting – HighCourt was wrong in shifting the burden of proofregarding change of user on to tenant – HighCourt without adverting to requirement oflandlord for additional accommodation recorded afinding of comparative hardship in favour oflandlord – Approach of High Court was casual andcursory – High Court re-appreciated evidence inrevision – Approach adopted by High Court isperverse as no such findings could be arrived atin reversal of concurrent findings of authorities– Power of High Court in revision under Rentcontrol Act is not as wide as power of appellateCourt."He also cited 2002 [4] CTC 572 between E.PALANISAMY V.PALANISAMY [D] BY Lrs. AND OTHERS, wherein it is held thus:"Tamil Nadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control]Act, 1960, Sections 8[2] and 8[5] – Deposit ofrent into Court – Scope of provision – On refusalby landlord to accept rent, tenant is to callupon landlord by way of notice to specify name ofBank in which rent could be deposited by tenantto credit of landlord – If landlord specifiesname of Bank to deposit rent there is obligationon part of tenant to make deposit of arrears ofrent in account of landlord – If landlord doesnot specify name of Bank, tenant is required tosend rent through money order – If landlord stillrefuses to accept rent, tenant is entitled tofile application before Rent Controller seekingpermission to deposit arrears of rent underSection 8[5].Tamil Nadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control]Act, 1960, Sections 8[2] and 8[]5 – deposit ofrent into Court without following procedureprescribed – Principle of Substantial compliance– Whether applicable – Whether such deposit ofrent would negative plea of eviction of tenant onground of wilful default – Mere refusal oflandlord to receive rent cannot justify action oftenant in straightaway invoking section 8[5] ofAct without following procedure contained inearlier sub-sections – Plea of substantialcompliance was rejected – Tenancy legislation is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ normally intended to benefit tenants – Butbenefits conferred on tenants can be enjoyed onlyon basis of strict compliance of statutoryprovisions – Equitable considerations have noplace in such matters – Strict compliance ofprocedure by tenant is necessary – Omission toavail prescribed procedure disentitles tenant toplead that there was no wilful default on hispart – Landlord is entitled to seek eviction oftenant on ground of wilful default in payment ofrent.Tamil Nadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control]Act, 1960, Section 10[2][i] – Wilful Default –Eviction on ground of wilful default – Mererefusal of landlord to receive rent cannotjustify action of tenant in straightaway invokingsection 8[5] of Act in filing application todeposit rent into Court without followingprocedure contained in section 8 of the said Act– Omission to avail prescribed proceduredisentitles tenant to plead that there was nowilful default on his part – Landlord is entitledto seek eviction of tenant on ground of wilfuldefault in payment of rent – Order of evictionpassed by High Court confirmed in appeal."He also relied on yet another decision reported in 2004 [2]MLJ 407 between N.BORAIAH V. N.ESWARAN wherein it is held thus:-"When the landlord had complained, by issue ofnotice, as well as by filing a Rent ControlApplication, on the ground of wilful default,then the tenant ought to have deposited the rentforthwith, showing his bona fide. Here is atenant, who has not cared to pay the amount, tilla petition under section 11[4] of the Act wasfiled and only after two years or so, he hadcleared the arrears of rent. This non-payment ofrent, for more than two years, should beconstrued as wilful default and there cannot beany other nomenclature for this non-payment ofrent."18.P.W.1-Purushothaman, the respondent/landlord, in hisevidence in cross-examination has admitted that since he refusedto receive the rent, RCOP was filed for depositing the rent intoCourt by the tenant and that till date, the revisionpetitioner/tenant has paid the rent as per the order made by thelower Court and that the respondent/landlord has received therent fixed by the lower Court till August 2002, from the tenant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and that he has received the rent till December 2002 by means ofanti-dated cheque from the tenant.19.R.W.1-Sivachandran, the revision petitioner/tenant, inhis evidence has stated that he has filed the civil revisionpetition and obtained stay orders as per Ex.R.1 and that he sentRs.1,220.41ps to the respondent/landlord in July, which was notreceived by the landlord and the returned cheque along with thecovering letter, Ex.R.2 [series] and therespondent/landlord/petitioner received the rent sent throughMoney Order on 21.08.2001 and the amount received through moneyorder was returned by the respondent/landlord as per Ex.R.4 andthe cheques sent along with the letter were returned as perEx.R.6 and after filing RCOP.No.67/2002, on the date of hearingof the petition, he has paid the rent due for July 2001 on31.08.2001 and he has given anti-dated cheque to the landlord andtherefore, there is no rent due and payable by him.20.It is significant to point out that revision petitionerSivachandran, R.W.1 in his cross-examination has specificallystated that after 29.06.2001 till obtaining stay orders in theCRP he has not made attempt to deposit the rent into Court andthat the petition filed under section 8[5] of the Act is pendingbefore the same Court.21.It is evident from Ex.R.1, the Hon'ble High Court's orderpassed in CMP.No.3216/2002 in CRP.No.285/2002 that the revisionpetitioner/tenant has obtained an order of interim stay dated27.03.2002 subject to the condition that he pays the rentenhanced by the Rent Controller during the pendancy of thisrevision, failing which the stay will get automatically vacated.22.It is not out of place to make a mention that the Hon'bleHigh Court in CMP.No.14029/2003 in CRP.[NPD} No/.1259/2003 haspassed orders on 31.12.2003 making the order of interim staygranted dated 18.09.2003 as absolute and dismissed theVCMP.No.20301/2003.23.It is useful to refer that the Hon'ble High Court haspassed orders on 12.08.2005 in CRP[NPD} Nos.285 and 477 of 2002allowing the said civil revision petitions by remitting thematters to the concerned Rent Controller for disposal and thatthe Rent Controller was directed to appoint a Commissioner to beassisted by a competent Surveyor from the Survey Department andanother qualified Engineer, so as to measure the demised premisesand ascertain the physical features, site value, building valueetc., as directed by the Rent Controller and submit a reportwithin three months etc. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

24.If the landlord has issued a notice to the tenant andwithin the notice period, without waiting for two monthspreferred a petition under section 10[2][i] of the Act as per thedecision reported in 1994 [1] MLJ 516 between KARRA KONDAMMA V.KARRA NAGAMMA.25.In AIR 2002 SC 1830 between RAJA MUTHUKONE [D] V.T.GOPALASAMI & ANOTHER "once the landlord gives notice to thetenant without claiming arrears or rent, he should wait for twomonths and cannot initiate proceedings, etc." In 1995 TNLJ 270between NELSON AND ANOTHER V. P.RANGANATHA MUDALIAR, it is heldthat "failure to pay the difference between the contractual rentand fair rent fixed by the Court would not amount to wilfuldefault. It cannot be said that the tenant is a defaulter forhaving not paid the excess amount pursuant to the order of theCourt. It is not an arrear under section 10[2] of the Act. TheAct does not make any provision with regard to consequences ofnon-payment of the difference between the fair rent and theagreed rent where fair rent is fixed at a higher figure than theagreed rent and the only remedy available to the landlord willtherefore be to file a suit. Consequently, further the provisionunder section 11[4] cannot be attracted also. Being a forumbound by a special statute the jurisdiction of the Rent ControlCourt is only to order eviction on the specific grounds mentionedtherein.26.Moreover, section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings [Leaseand Rent Control] Act, 1960 is only an enabling provision and nota mandatory requirement in the considered opinion of this Court,on the facts and circumstances of the present case on hand.27.In 2001 [1] TNLJ 94 between AGARWALA S.G. V. ZEEVARSULTAN KHALEELI, it is observed that "in an eviction petition onthe ground of wilful default of payment of arrears of rent beingthe difference between the fair rent fixed and the contractualrent, the High Court when remands the matter, no fair rent isfixed and subsequent events taken not of and concurrent findingof wilful default set aside in revision".28.As a matter of fact, the learned Rent Controller is freeto fix the fair rent irrespective of the contention of theparties in a given case, in the considered opinion of this Court.29.Learned counsel for the respondent/landlord relied on thedecision reported in 1996 [2] L.W. 849 [cited supra], wherein itis held that "we are firmly of the view that difference of theamount made between the fair rent fixed and the agreed rent isthe arrears of rent for the building and it becomes payable whenthe order fixing the fair rent becomes final and the same shallhave to be paid within 15 days of the tenancy month, failing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ which, it would be open to the landlord to issue notice callingupon the tenant to pay the arrears of rent and in the event ofthe tenant failing to pay arrears of rent pursuant to the notice,it would be open to the landlord to institute proceeding foreviction on the ground falling under section 10[2][i] of the Act.It is not necessary for the landlor to go to a civil Court torecover the arrears of rent."30.Section 10[2][i] of the Act speaks of that "the tenanthas not paid or tendered the rent due by him in respect ofbuilding within 15 days after the expiry of the time fixed in theagreement of tenancy with his landlord or in the absence of anysuch agreement by the last day of the month next following thatfor which the rent is payable or ...." and the explanation isthat "for the purpose of the sub-section, default to pay ortender rent shall be considered as wilful, if the default by thetenant in the payment or tender of rent continues after the issueof two months notice by the landlord claiming the rent."31.In the instant case on hand, RCOP.No.1148/2001 was filedon 25.07.2001. Admittedly, Ex.P.2-notice was issued on05.07.2001. Therefore, it transpires very candidly that the saidRCOP has been filed without the expiry of two months period andthat too, when there is a demand in regard to the claim of agreedrent and fair rent as per the order passed in RCA.No.607/1996dated 29.06.2001 and as such, as per the decision of the Hon'bleSupreme Court reported in 2000 TNLJ 24 between M.S.CHORDIAAUTOMOBILES V. S.MOOSA AND OTHERS under section 10[2][i]-explanation of the Tamil Nadu Builidings [Lease and Rent Control]Act, 1960, [as amended] that "notice alleging default issued –eviction petition before the two months – not proper – not amountto wilful default" will apply squarely to the present and in thatview of the matter this court opines that RCOP.No.1148/2001 filedby the respondent/landlord is per se not maintainable in law.32.Even otherwise, when R.W.1-Sivachandran has stated in hisevidence that he has filed the RCOP petition under section 8[5]of the Act for deposit of rent into court and when it wastendered by the revision petitioner/tenant the same was refusedon the side of the respondent/landlord besides filing a Memo bythe revision petitioner to that effect in as much as section 8[5]of the act is only an enabling provision and not a mandatory oneand when the matter fair rent has not reached finality betweenthe parties in accordance with law, it cannot be construed by anymeans that the civil revision petitioner/tenant has committeddefault as per section 10[2][i] of the Act.33.It cannot be gainsaid that the observation of the learnedAppellate Authority, viz., the learned VII Judge, Court of SmallCauses [Full Additional charge] in his order passed in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ RCA.No.1108/2002 on 21.07.2003 in paragraph 14 to the effect that"the civil revision petitioner has not paid the monthly fair rentfixed by the Appellate court even after notice and therefore,arrived at a conclusion tht the tenant has not paid the rent andcommitted wilful default" is not correct in the consideredopinion of this court. Further more the observation of thelearned Appellate Authority that "during the period of filing ofthe RCOP petition no stay was obtained for the orders passed bythe Appellate court in fair rent and therefore, the said order isto be observed by the tenant as part of his duty", is alsoincorrect in the opinion of this court.34.The civil revision petitioner/tenant though has taken aplea that the premises belongs to a Public Charitable Trust andRent Control Act is not applicable as seen from the averment madein the counter, the same has not been urged before this court.35.Looking at from any angle and on consideration ofavailable material evidence and documents on record and alsotaking note of the subsequent event, viz., order passed by theHon'ble High Court in CRP.Nos.285 and 477 of 2002 dated12.08.2005, this court comes to the inevitable conclusion thatthe finding of the wilful default arrived at by the learnedAppellate Authority in RCA.No.1108/2002 dated 21.07.2003 isliable to be set aside by this court sitting in revision toprevent aberration of justice and to promote substantial cause ofjustice and accordingly, the same is set aside. Resultantly, theorder passed by the learned Rent Controller in RCOP.No.1148/2001dated 04.10.2002 dismissing the petition is confirmed. It isopen to the respondent/landlord/petitioner to file a fresh RCOPpetition as per the relevant provision of the Tamil NaduBuildings [Lease and Rent Control] Act, 1960, if finality isreached in the fair rent issue between the parties and whenwilful default is committed by the revision petitioner/tenant.36.In fine, the civil revision petition is allowed with theabove observations. However, in view of the facts andcircumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear theirown costs.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.Sgl/ap https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The 7th Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.2.XIV Court of Small Causes, Chennai.3.The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.one cc to M/s.C.Rajan, advocate SR.No.3727one cc to M/s.M.Bakthavatsalam, advocate SR.No.3458C.R.P.(NPD).No.1259 of 2003sky/5/2