AMEERBAI Vs. A MOHAMMED SALIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the unsuccessful tenant before the learned Rent Controller and as confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in respect of the eviction ordered from the petition residential premises on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and acts of waste. The eviction sought on the ground of own use and occupation for residential purposes and for demolition and reconstruction have been negatived by the learned Rent Controller and confirmed in the appeal preferred by the landlord before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority.

(2.) The respondent/landlord filed the Rent Control Original Petition seeking eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent stating that the revision petitioner/tenant committed default in payment of rent wilfully from January, 1992 to June, 1994 at the rate of Rs.375/- per month for the portion bearing door No.7/53 and 54 of Sathra Veethi, Podanur Town, Coimbatore District. The petition premises is required for own use and occupation by the landlord with his family members. The tenant has damaged the dividing wall of the house and put a doorway without the consent or permission of the landlord. When questioned the tenant set right the same, but again in March, 1993 the tenant caused damage to the wall and put a pathway. The landlord preferred complaint to the Podanur Police Station for taking action on 7.3.1993 and an agreement was reached between them which was reduced to writing that the tenant is to pay a sum of Rs.2,625/- towards arrears of rent for 14 months before 20.3.1993, that he is to reconstruct the damaged wall before 14.3.1993 and he is to get permission before making alterations in the property. The building is very old, and in dilapidated and very bad condition. Hence, the landlord requires the building for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction, for which purpose, he has got sufficient means. He undertakes that the work of demolition will be commenced not later than one month and will be completed before three months from the date of recovery of possession. The lawyer notice issued on 3.7.1994 was served upon the tenant on 5.7.1994.

(3.) The respondent tenant filed counter denying that he is very irregular and committed default in payment of rent. He paid the rent till June, 1994 directly to the landlord without receiving receipt. The rent for the months of July, August and September, 1994 sent by money order was refused by the landlord. The requirement sought that the petition premises is required for own use and occupation by the landlord with his family members is without bona fide. The landlord has let out 6 other portions abutting the petition premises to various tenants. He has also got three shops and two houses and leased out these portions to various tenants. It is denied that the tenant damaged the dividing wall of the house and put a doorway and that in March, 1993 caused damages to the wall and put a pathway. It is denied that the building is very old and in dilapidated condition. The petition premises is in very good condition.