S.M. SULTAN ROWTHAR Vs. KOTHANDARAMA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LANDLORD in R.C.O.P. 2 of 1991 on the file of Rent Controller/District Munsif Court, Maduranthagam is the revision petitioner.

(2.) PETITIONER alleges that he is landlord of scheduled premises and respondent herein is occupying the building as tenant who is doing business therein. It is further averred that the building was let out to him by the vendor of petitioner viz. Pattammal and petitioner purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 14.11.1990. He also said that first respondent is well aware of the purchase and he has been attorned tenancy. Tenancy according to landlord is as per English Calendar month and respondent has to pay rent on the first of every agrarian calendar month. Petitioner further alleged that respondent has committed wilful default in payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month and from 1.11.1990 till 31.3.1991 he has not paid rent. Notice was issued on 18.12.1990 asking respondent to vacate the building and hand over possession on the ground that the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction and also for landlord's own requirement that he wants to improve his own business. Notice was received by respondent on 24.1.1991 but he has failed to comply with the demand.

(3.) SECOND respondent in this revision got himself impleaded of its own in the year 1994 and filed counter on 26.1.1996. According to second respondent, it is the owner of property and petitioner has no right over the scheduled mentioned property. It is also contended that vendor for petitioner has no right to sell the property. Attacking the sale deed, second respondent also filed O.S. No. 160 of 1990 on the file of Sub Court, Chengalputtu and petitioner has no right to initiate any proceedings under Rent Control Act. It was also alleged that petitioner cannot claim rent against first respondent in this case. He also alleged that after initiation of proceedings in O.S. 160 of 1990 temple filed I.A. 973 of 1990 and obtained order of injunction restraining tenants from paying rent and the said interim order is still in force. According to second respondent, petition is without any merit and he prayed for dismissal of the application.