- (1.)THE revision petitioner in both the revisions is the tenant under the respondent/landlord in respect of the petition premises. Both the revisions have been filed challenging the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority on the ground of demolition and reconstruction in confirming such order of the learned Rent Controller.
(2.)THE mother of the respondent, viz. , Pattammal has filed both the Rent Control Original Petitions for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and demolition and reconstruction. In addition in respect of the tenant Narayanan, it is stated that the premises is used other than for which it was leased. Both the Rent Control Original Petitions have been filed by the landlady claiming that the premises in both the petitions belonged to her son, the respondent Chandrasekaran, who is a college lecturer, in that, she was collecting rent on behalf of the respondent as authorised by him, which fact has not been disputed by the tenants in both the revisions. As per the Rent Control Original Petitions, both the tenants committed wilful default in payment of rent for the months of November and December, 1996. According to the landlady, the premises in both the petitions are required bona fide for demolition and reconstruction, since the building is very old and decrepit and some portions of the building partially Madras terraced and partially tiled. The doors, walls and floorings are in damaged condition. The building is situated in the heart of the town. If new building is put up, it will fetch more income, for which the landlady is having sufficient funds. The necessary undertaking also furnished as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). In addition, R. C. O. P. No. 6 of 1997 has been filed against the tenant Narayanan that the petition premises was let out for residential purpose which is a portion of the main house, but contrary to the terms of tenancy, the tenant Narayanan is running a cycle shop and as such, he is using the premises for the purpose other than for which it was leased.
(3.)BOTH the Rent Control Original Petitions have been resisted that the tenants in both the petitions have not committed default, much less wilful default in payment of rent as claimed by the landlady and that the requirement of the premises in both the petitions for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction is without bona fide. The tenant Narayanan also challenged the ground of eviction that he is used the premises other than for which it was leased out by stating that right from the inception of the tenancy, he is carrying on business in cycle shop and also residing therein.