Rs.636/-. The only difference is that, instead of paying the abovesaid rent to the plaintiff, the defendant should pay the same to the Tamilnadu Housing Board as the said amount is liable to be paid by the plaintiff to the Tamilnadu Housing Board for the allotment of the flat. When the Tamilnadu Housing Board had already alloted the flat and passed appropriate orders in favour of the plaintiff and the flat had also been handed over to the plaintiff on 17.03.1983, it is found that the plaintiff, as such, has become the owner of the flat and become entitled to collect the rent in respect of the flat and accordingly, he having become the landlord in respect of the flat as per the definition of the landlord under the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960, it is seen that he had let out the the same to the defendant on tenancy arrangement, as above noted, and the monthly rent is fixed at Rs.636/-. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had failed to pay the monthly rent regularly to the Tamilnadu Housing Board and thereby, it is found that the plaintiff has taken the plea that the defendant has committed willful default in the payment of rent. When the suit property, namely, the flat, also falls within the definition of the building contemplated under the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, if according to the plaintiff, the defendant has committed willful default in the payment of the rent, as abovestated, either to the Tamilnadu Housing Board or to him, as the case may be, to evict the defendant from the suit property, the only remedy available to the plaintiff is by way of filing the rent control petition and not by way of the civil suit. On the abovesaid score alone, as rightly contended by the defendant, the suit laid by the plaintiff is not maintainable.
