A GEETHA Vs. G SANKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE civil revision petitions have been filed by the landlords/landlady, against the common judgment and decree, dated 27.2.1998 and made in R.C.A.Nos.10 of 13 of 1995 on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (Sub Judge), Thiruvannamalai, confirming the common order and decretal order, dated 10.7.1995 and made M.P.No.73 of 1987 in R.C.O.P.No.2 of 1987; R.C.O.P.Nos.2 of 1994, 2 of 1987 and 2 of 1993 respectively, on the file of the learned Rent Controller (District Munsif), Thiruvannamalai.

(2.) THE brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of these civil revision petitions are as follows: THE premises described in each of the Rent Control Petitions viz., R.C.O.P.Nos.2 of 1987, 2 of 1993 and 2 of 1994, is one and the same and it was originally owned by T.S.Ramu Mudaliar, the father of the petitioners 1 to 3 in R.C.O.P.No.2 of 1987. THE demised property was allotted to the share of petitioners 1 to 3, referred to above, along with other properties, and, therefore, they became owners of the said premises. THE father of the petitioners 1 to 3 leased out the demised premises to the 1st respondent and his brothers G.Ramu Pillai and Radhakrishnan. In the partition that had taken place between Ramu Pillai, the 1st respondent and Radhakrishnan, the demised property was allotted to the share of the Ist respondent and he agreed to pay rent to petitioners 1 to 3. THE rent for the demised premises at the time of filing of the petition was Rs.1,800 per annum, apart from an agreement to pay Municipal Tax for the demised premises by the 1st respondent. THErefore, there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner(s) and the 1st respondent in each of the petitions. THE 1st respondent has committed wilful default in the payment of rent from 1.3.1980 onwards, except paying a sum of Rs.1,000 towards arrears of rent. THE 1st respondent has also leased out the demised premises to the 2nd respondent, Gurunathan, without the consent of the petitioners 1 to 3. THE 4th respondent purchased the demised premises from petitioners 1 to 3 and became entitled to the demised premises. THErefore, the 4th petitioner was impleaded as party to the proceedings in R.C.O.P.No.2 of 1987. THE petitioners have sought for eviction of the respondents from the demised premises on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent from 1.3.1980 except paying a sum of Rs.1,000 towards arrears of rent and also on the ground of subletting.

(3.) THE respective respondents in all the petitions referred to above resisted the claim made by the petitioners in the respective petitions, on the following grounds; THE father of the petitioners 1 to 3 in R.C.O.P.No.2 of 1987, T.S.Ramu Mudaliar, was the original owner of the demised premises and he let out the said premises to Sankaran, the 1st respondent and his brothers Ramu Pillai and Radhakrishnan on an annual rent of Rs.365. THE lease by T.S.Ramu Mudaliar in favour of the 1st respondent and his brothers in the year 1936 was only vacant site, measuring 73 feet 9 inches North-South and 48 feet 6 inches East-West in T.S.No.922 in Ward No.4, Block No.17 in Thiruvannamalai Town. THE lease was oral. THE rent was enhanced periodically and at the time of filing the Rent Control Petition, the rent payable was Rs.1,800 per annum. THE 1st respondent and his brothers constructed pucca building roofed with zinc sheets in the demised vacant site, measuring 40 feet, 3 inches East-West and 30 feet North-South, on the northern portion of the vacant site and another building measuring 43 feet, 9 inches North-South and 13 feet, 9 inches East West on the Eastern portion of the said vacant site, roofed with zinc sheets. A well was dug in the South-Western portion apart from constructing parapet walls with cement plastering around the well. A concrete overhead water tank, a tub and a dry latrine were also constructed in the said vacant site at a cost of Rs.60,000. An electric service connection hearing SC No.10019 was obtained in the name of Ramu Pillai. An Oil Crusher and rice flour huller was also installed in the above said constructions. T.S.Ramu Mudaliar died in the year 1980. THE demised premises was also the subject matter of partition among Ramu Pillai, Sankaran, the 1st respondent, and Radhakrishnan and the demised premises has been allotted to the share of the 1st respondent in R.C.O.P.No.2 of 1987. THE petitioners 1 to 3 in R.C.O.P.No.2 of 1987 are aware of the above said partition and allotment of the demised premises to the 1st respondent in R.C.O.P.No.2 of 1987. THE 1st respondent continued to pay annual rent of Rs.1,800 to the petitioners 1 to 3 in R.C.O.P.No.2 of 1987 after the death of T.S.Ramu Mudaliar, in the year 1980. THE 1st respondent and his brothers have to pay Municipal Tax for the demised premises, as per the terms of lease and accordingly they were paying Municipal Tax for the demised premises and after allotment of the said premises to the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent is paying the Municipal Tax for the demised premises to the Municipality. THE 1st respondent has been paying rent for the demised premises at Rs.1,800 per annum from 1.3.1980 every year, but the petitioners 1 to 3 in R.C.O.P.No.2 of 1987 were not in the habit of issuing receipt for the rent paid from 1.3.1980. THE 1st respondent has not committed wilful default in the payment of rent as claimed by the petitioners 1 to 3. THE petitioners 1 to 3 demanded advance of Rs.10,000 and rent of Rs.12,000 per annum for the demised premises from the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent was not agreeable to the same. THE 1st respondent has not sublet the demised premises to the 2nd respondent. THE 2nd respondent is running a provision store at door No.24-D, Sivanpatha Street which premises also originally belonged to the petitioners 1 to 3 and sold to one Murugaiyan. THE 2nd respondent in R.C.O.P.No.2 of 1987 has nothing to do with this premises described in the petition. THE vacant site, which is situate in T.S.No.922, Thiruvannamalai Town alone was leased out by the petitioners 1 to 3 and not any building and, therefore, the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act will not apply to the said premises.