R SAMBASIVAM Vs. THANGAVELU DHANABAGYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TENANT in R.C.O.P. 5 of 1995 on the file of Rent Controller, Mannargudi is the revision petitioner. Landlords filed application for eviction of tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent and also in the ground that they need scheduled building for their own occupation, i.e., for the occupation of their daughter and son-in-law, who are dependants on them.

(2.) MATERIAL averments in the eviction petition are thus. Scheduled building originally belonged to one Abdul Subban and Abdul Samad. Both of them leased out the property to respondent. As per registered sale deed dated 12.10.1992 (Ex.P1) Abdul Subban and Abdul Samed sold the properties to petitioner. Adjoining property also belongs to very same persons which was occupied by one Rasu Chettiar. Sale deed dated 12.10.1992 covers that portion also. After purchase, Rasu Chettiar vacated the premises and landlords obtained possession. According to landlords, they purchased the property only to accommodate their daughter and son in law who are residing in a rented building at Mannargudi and they wanted this building to accommodate them. It is also said that whenever they come to India, they also want to occupy the building along with their daughter. After Ex.P1 was executed, the fact was informed to tenant as per registered notice dated 26.8.1993 calling upon tenant to attorn the tenancy, According to landlord after they purchased the property, rent was not paid and in spite of notice dated 26.8.1993, no rent was paid by tenant. Rate of rent according to landlords in Rs. 650/- and on the date of eviction petition more than Rs. 17,550/- was due towards rent arrears. Eviction petition was therefore filed for eviction of tenant.

(3.) I heard the learned Counsel on both sides.