G NAGESWARA RAO Vs. R SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the tenant/appellant as revision petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 9.8.2000 and made in R.C.No.849 of 1997 on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming partially the order of the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.2686 of 1994.

(2.) THE brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition are as follows: THE respondent herein who is the landlord along with his co-sharers are the owners of the petition mentioned premises and the revision petitioner herein, who is the respondent before the Rent Controller, became a tenant of the said premises in the year 1970 on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000. THE revision petitioner, as tenant, has committed willful default in payment of rent for the period from May, 1994 to September, 1994 and has also sublet a portion of the demised premises without the permission of the landlord of the said premises. THE revision petitioner has also made material alteration in the building, thereby causing wastage to the said building. THE respondent herein, is in occupation of a rented premises and therefore, he requires the demised premises for his own use and occupation, since the landlord of the premises Amarchand Kothari has threatened to initiate proceedings for eviction from the said premises by filing a suit before the. It is on these grounds, the respondent herein, as landlord, has sought for eviction of the revision petitioner, as tenant, from the demised premises.

(3.) THE fact remains that the revision petition has not paid the rent for the period from May, 1994 to September, 1994 and also thereafter till he deposits a sum of Rs.48,000 in Rent Control Appellate Court on 17.11.1997 to obtain an order of stay for eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller. THE reason given for non-payment of rent by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that there was an agreement for purchase of demised premises between the revision petitioner and one Arumugam and Kousika Bhoopathy, who are third parties to this proceeding wherein the abovesaid persons had agreed to sell the demised property after purchasing the same from the owners under an agreement said to have been entered into between Arumugam and Kousika Bhoopathy on one hand and three sharers out of six sharers on the other hand. It is relevant to point out that it is an admitted fact that this respondent was not one among the three sharers who are said to have entered into an agreement to sell the demised property to the abovesaid Arumugam and Kousika Bhoopathy. While there is no agreement for sale between the revision petitioner herein and the respondent herein or the other sharers of the demised premises, it is not known as to how the revision petitioner is claiming to have an agreement of sale with regard to the demised premises with the respondent herein or with other sharers of this property.