CHINNAKANNU PILLAI Vs. GOMATHI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for a writ of certiorari to remove the records in the proceeding which ended with the order of the Government dated 20th June 1951-L. Dis. 772/51/P.W.C. for its being quashed. The records are here.

(2.) The 1st respondent Gomathi Ammal purchased the equity of redemption over certain properties including the building and site in dispute in this case in the year 1121, when they were outstanding with a possessory mortgagee who had leased the subject matter of this proceeding to the petitioner under a rent deed in the year 1117 while he was already in possession as a lessee. The 1st respondent redeemed the mortgage and took a deed of release from the mortgagee wherein she was directed to obtain possession from the petitioner on payment of Rs. 800/- towards value of improvements. A term of five years had been fixed as the duration of the lease as evidenced by the aforesaid document of the year 1117. On the expiry of that period, the 1st respondent issued notice to the petitioner demanding possession. This was followed up by a suit, O.S. 1050/1122 in the District Munsiffs Court, Trivandrum filed by the 1st respondent against the petitioner for arrears of rent as well as eviction. This suit was filed in Medam 1122. The petitioner filed a written statement in Kanni 1123 contending, inter alia, that the owner of the equity of redemption had agreed to sell it to him, that the sale relied upon by the 1st respondent plaintiff was in contravention of that agreement and consequently invalid, and that in the event of eviction, he is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 2,000/- by way of value of improvements. It was also contended that the prayer for eviction could not be granted on account of the Travancore Rent Control O. 1122. The 1st respondent thereafter filed an application (B.R.C. Case No. 215/1124) before the Controller under the provisions of the said Order, claiming possession on the ground that the lessee had left rent in arrears which would be a ground for eviction. The petitioner had deposited the arrears of rent claimed in the Munsiffs Court and he was also depositing rent that accrued due after the suit. There was thus no arrear of rent as alleged in the application and that being the sole ground relied upon to sustain the prayer for eviction, the application was dismissed.

(3.) Soon after this, the 1st respondent started fresh proceedings before the Controller by filing Building Rent Control Case No. 248/1124 claiming eviction on two grounds, firstly arrears of rent, and secondly, requirement of the premises for her own use for purposes of a jewellers business run as a family concern by her husband under the name D. Doraiswamy & Sons that was being conducted in a rented building, which had to be surrendered to its owner. It was stated that after such surrender, the business was being carried on at her residence.