SAKUNTHALA Vs. V GANAPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful tenants before the Rent Control Appellate Authority are the revision petitioners in these Civil Revision Petitions. These Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the common judgment made in the Rent Control Appeals preferred by tenants, which were dismissed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the common order of eviction of the tenants from the petition premises passed by the Rent Controller on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent and subletting.

(2.) The landlord as petitioner filed all the Rent Control Original Petitions claiming that he is the owner of the petition premises bearing Door No. 17-A, popularly known as Sastriar Thope at East Houleward Road, Trichy, consisting of various hutments, in view of the purchase of the same made by him in 1984 from the previous owner M.Ramachandra Sastrigal.

(3.) The landlord as petitioner filed R.C.O.P. No. 124 of 1989, relating to R.C.A. No. 187 of 1999 against which C.R.P. No. 692 of 2002 has arisen, against the tenants/respondents stating that the first respondent in that petition took the petition premises bearing door No. 17, being a portion of the entire property, on lease as tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.40/- and committed default in payment of rent from January 1989 to May 1989. The petitioner has made entries in the katchath book for the rental amount received and the same is with the first respondent. The first respondent has also sublet the petition premises to respondents 2 to 5. Lawyers notice was also served upon the respondents 1 to 3 and 5 but no reply was sent and rent also has not been paid. On these grounds, the landlord sought for eviction of the respondents from the petition premises. The said petition was resisted by the tenants as respondents by filing counter stating that they have been in possession of the petition premises, that Ramachandra Sastrigal leased vacant site measuring 20 X 50, that the first respondent has put up a thatched building of 128 X 48 of his own and that he has been paying site rent of Rs.40/- per month and was tethering cattle. After disposal of cattle in 1978, the first respondent converted the house into three residential tenements and with the knowledge and consent of Ramachandra Sastrigal, he let out the building to the respondents 2 to 5. The northern tenement was leased to Kaliyaperumal, husband of the fifth respondent in April 1984, the middle tenement was leased to the fourth respondent in September 1980 while the southern tenement was leased to the second respondent in September 1980. The first respondent sold the superstructure to the husband of the fifth respondent and to the respondents 2 and 4 in December 1988. The petitioners agent Balan Nair took the respondents 1, 2 and 4 and the husband of the fifth respondent to the petitioner by the last week of December 1988 and the first respondent settled his account and surrendered his tenancy right over the site by the end of December 1988. Thereafter, the site was rented out to the respondents 2 and 4 and husband of the fifth respondent directly on a monthly rent of Rs.15/- each from January 1989 and the tenants paid the rent to Balan Nair, agent of the petitioner. Pursuant to the agreement of lease of the site between the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 4 and the husband of the fifth respondent, the tenants are in possession of the site belonging to the petitioner and also the building belonging to them in view of the purchase of the same from the first respondent. As such, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are not applicable. The respondents 1, 3 and 5 are unnecessary parties. The site rent of Rs.15/- per month was paid by the respondents 2 and 4 and the husband of the fifth respondent to Balan Nair till March 1989 and from April 1989 to June 1989, it was paid in Court on 18.7.1989. On these grounds, the tenants sought for dismissal of the petition.