MANI Vs. K S SANTHANA KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenants in RCOP. No. 9 of 1995, who have lost their defence before the Courts below are the revision petitioners herein. RCOP. No. 9 of 1995 was filed before the Rent Controller (District Munsif) Arrakkonam, under Section 10 (2) (ii) (a) and 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1969.

(2.) ACCORDING to the landlord, he is in possession of D. No. 59, Thasildar Street, Arakkonam. The first respondent has taken lease of the said Door No. 59 for a monthly rent of Rs. 120/- for the purpose of running a tailoring shop in the name and style of New York tailors and has agreed to pay the monthly rent on or before 12th day of every English calendar month. Without informing the landlord, the first respondent had sub-let the premises bearing Door No. 59 for a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- to the second respondent. The landlord is running a mess by name Kumari Vilas Naidu Mess in a rental premises, for a monthly rent of Rs. 1,200/-, under one Govinda Ammal bearing Door No. 93 (old NO. 67), Gandhi Rod, Stuartpet, Arakkonam, which is 50 feet away from Door NO. 59, wherein the first respondent is running his tailoring shop with the 2nd respondent. The landlords family is residing on the backyard of Door No. 93, wherein the mess is being conducted by the landlord. The landlady of Door No. 93 had issued notice dated 24. 12. 1989 demanding the landlord herein, who is running a mess in Door No. 93, to vacate and hand over the possession of Door No. 93, since the same is required for her personal occupation, ie. , to conduct finance company. In the mediation took place subsequently the landlord herein (tenant in Door No. 93) undertook to vacate and handover possession within 3 = years ie. , on or before 22. 12. 1993. He was allowed to conduct mess in Door No. 93 for another 1 = years thereafter. The landlord herein/tenant in Door No. 93, had agreed to vacate and hand over the possession of Door No. 93 on or before 22. 4. 1995. Only under such circumstance, the petition schedule property ie. , Door. No. 59 is required for the landlord herein for conducting his mess in the suit building. In January 1992, the first respondent herein had agreed to vacate and hand over possession of the petition schedule property, but subsequently he retracted and filed O. S. No. 459 of 1992 claiming an order of permanent injunction. The landlord herein is the owner of not only door NO. 59 but also Door No. 60 and 61. In Door No. 60 one Raji is in occupation as a tenant and in Door No. 71 one Nagarajan is in occupation as a tenant. The landlord herein requires Door No. 59, 60 and 61 to run Kumari Vilas Naidu Mess after vacating the same from door No. 93. The landlord herein has laso applied for necessary municipal plan for conducting Kumari Vilas Naidu Mess at Door No. 59, 60 and 61. Apart from Door No. 59, 60 and 61 there is no other building of his own is available with the landlord herein. A notice dated 20. 3. 1995 was issued by the landlord to the respondents herein. The first respondent has refused to receive the said notice. The second respondent even after receipt of the said notice has not come forward to comply with the request made by the said notice. Hence, the petition.

(3.) THE first respondent has filed a counter, which was adopted by the second respondent, as follows: the 1st respondent admits that in the petition schedule property the 1st respondent is running a tailoring shop in the name and style of New York Tailors as a tenant under the petitioner/landlord for a monthly rent of Rs. 120/ -. The 1st respondent has not sub-let the premises to the 2nd respondent for a monthly rent of Rs. 300/ -. The 2nd respondent is the brother of the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent is assisting the 1st respondent in tailoring business. From the date of inception of opening of the tailoring shop itself, both the 1st and 2nd respondents are in the petition schedule building. The 1st respondent had filed O. S. No. 459 of 1992 before the District Munsif, Arakkonam, for an order of injunction restraining the petitioner/landlord from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule building and got a decree as prayed for. Even at the time of visiting of the Advocate Commissioner on 21. 10. 1992, the 2nd respondent was working along with the 1st respondent in the petition schedule building. The allegation that the landlord herein is conducting a mess in the name and style of Kumari Vilas Naidu Mess in the building belonging to one Govinda Ammal and the same is situated 50 feet away from the petition schedule building and the rent was originally fixed as Rs. 800 and has subsequently been raised as Rs. 1,200/- pm and that Tmt. Govinda Ammal had asked the tenant/landlord herein to vacate and hand over possession of the said building are all false. Further allegation that the Door No. 60 and 61 are also required for running Kumari Vilas Naidu Mess by the landlord herein along with the petition scheduled building No. 59 is also false. The first respondent has given a suitable reply to the notice received from the petitioner/landlord herein. Since the first respondent has not refused to pay the enhanced monthly rent of Rs. 200/- the petitioner/landlord has filed this frivolous petition.