M VENKATACHALAM Vs. K M VELU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 04.02.2013, passed in R.C.A.No.3 of 2011 on the file of the Appellate Authority Rent Tribunal (Sub Judge) Gobichettipalayam, reversing the fair and decretal order dated 27.01.2011, passed in R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2010 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif) Gobichettipalayam.

(2.) The petitioner is the tenant and respondents are the landlords in R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2009. The respondents filed the said R.C.O.P against the petitioner for eviction, on the ground of wilful default, denial of title, demolition and reconstruction and for own use and occupation. According to the respondents, the petitioner was originally inducted as tenant in the year 1970, on a monthly rent of Rs.50/-. It was gradually increased and monthly rent was Rs.700/- from 01.04.2008. The petitioner was regularly paying the rent till 31.03.2009 and committed default from 01.04.2009 to 31.12.2009 for the period of 9 months, totalling Rs.(700 X 9) = Rs.6300/-. In spite of repeated demands and reminders, the petitioner did not pay the rent. The petition premises is very old and is in a dilapidated condition. The respondents require the petition premises for demolition and reconstruction. The first respondent is a medical practitioner having clinic in a rented building on a monthly rent of Rs.1800/-. Therefore, he requires the petition premises for his own use and occupation. Hence, the respondents have filed the present R.C.O.P.

(3.) The petitioner filed counter affidavit and denied the landlord-tenant relationship between the respondents and petitioner. According to the petitioner, he is a permissive occupant of the petition premises. He was a cook in the house of the grand father, M.S.Muthugounder, of the first respondent and his son, K.M.Murugaiyan. The grandfather and father of the first respondent permitted the petitioner to reside in the petition premises and after the marriage of the petitioner, they gifted the said property to the petitioner. Therefore, the Rent Control Act is not applicable. In the year 2005, the petitioner requested the respondents to carry out the repair work of the petition premises. They refused to carry out the repair on the ground that the petitioner is owner of the petition premises. On refusal by the respondents, the petitioner carried out the repair by spending a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The respondents have not mentioned the date from which the petitioner has become the tenant.