CHELLAMMAL AND OTHERS Vs. CHELLIAH PILLAI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners are the tenants in R.C.O.P. No. 44 of 1983 on the file of the Rent Controller, Trichy and they succeeded by its order dated 20-12-1991. On an appeal by the landlords in R.C.A. 11 of 1982 on the file of the learned Rent Control, Appellate Authority, the tenants have failed to sustain their success. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority by its reversal order dated 22-7-1994, set aside the order of the Rent Controller passed in R.C.O.P. No. 44 of 1983 and the order of eviction was passed against the revision petitioners on two grounds. Accordingly, canvassing the same, the revision petitioners have come forward with this revision under Sec. 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 (as amended by Act 23 of 1973) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The petition mentioned premises bearing Door No. 35, N.S.C. Bose Road, Trichirappalli town belonging to the respondents-landlords. The entire petition building originally belonged to one M. T. Chandramouli and others. The first respondent herein was a tenant under the said owner Chandramouli and others in respect of the eastern portion of the premises. The above said original owners sold the eastern portion to the second respondent herein by means of sale deed dated 12-7-1982 and the western portion to the first respondent therein on 12-7-1982 itself. The respondents herein who are father and son were also tenants under the said Chandramouli. The predecessor-in-title of the revision petitioners by name Palaniandi Pillai, was paying a sum of Rs. 600.00 by way of rent to the previous landlord Chandramouli. According to the respondents-landlords, their purchase of the suit property under the sale deeds from the previous owner Chandramouli was fully known to the tenants-revision petitioners and, therefore, the revision petitioners-tenants are liable to pay rent from the month of Sept., 1982 for four months at the rate of Rs. 600.00 per month which comes to Rs. 2400.00, the revision petitioners-tenants, in spite of repeated requests and notices, have not paid the rents from Sept., 1982 to Dec., 1982 and they have committed wilful default in payment of rent and they are liable to be evicted under Sec. 10(2)(i) of the Act.

(3.) The respondents-landlords are carrying on textiles business under the name and style of Ganesan Stores in a portion of the petition premises. The landlords business has improved and developed and the portion in the occupation of the landlords is inadequate and hence, the landlords require the portion under the occupation of the tenants-revision petitioners for their own use and occupation by way of additional accommodation, under Sec. 10(3)(c) of the Act. There was a well alone situate in between the portion in the occupation of the revision petitioners-tenants and the landlords-respondents, the landlords require the petition premises bona fide for own use and occupation under Sec. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.