KARTHYAYANI Vs. ANANDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for determination in this case is whether a legatee under a testamentary disposition could claim the status of a statutory tenant and resist the claim for eviction.

(2.) Original landlord died and his legal heirs got themselves impleaded and prosecuted the proceedings. Eviction was sought for under S.11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of Act 2 of 1965. The schedule shop rooms was taken on lease by one Anandan from the previous landlords on 16.7.1962 for a monthly rent of Rs.30/-. Schedule premises was purchased by the deceased first petitioner before the Rent Control Court and the tenant Anandan attorned him. Rent was enhanced to Rs. 50/-, Rs.100/- and later to Rs. 150/-. Anandan died on 14.6.1986 and the tenancy right inherited to his wife K.P. Karthiayini, the first respondent before the Rent Control Court. Anandan was conducting a tea shop in the schedule premises. Karthiayini executed a registered Will dated 16.11.1984. Business was conducted by her till she died on 24.2.1989.

(3.) Landlord sent a registered lawyer notice dated 5.10.1988 directing the tenant to vacate the premises and to terminate the sublease effected in favour of respondents 2 and 3. In spite of notice first respondent and subsequently the other respondents did not vacate the premises. Consequently the first petitioner original landlord filed the present Rent Control Petition 22.12.1988 claiming eviction on the ground of sublease as well as for conducting business for the 4th and 5th petitioners who are sons of deceased first petitioner. Rent Control Petition was resisted by respondents 2 and 3. Execution of the Will was admitted. The first respondent had no issues and she had executed a registered Will. After death of first respondent on 24.2.1989 respondents 2 and 3 got tenancy rights along with that properties by virtue of the Will. Further it was stated that they are the children of first respondent's brother and were brought up by first respondent. They had helped Anandan in the conduct of business, so also the first respondent. Claim for arrears of rent was also disputed; so also the bona fide need urged by the petitioners. Further it was also stated that supplemental respondents 4 and 5 have no manner of right in the schedule premises since the entire property along with the tenancy rights were bequeathed to respondents 2 and 3. Though notices were taken out to respondents 4 and 5 they remained ex parte.