PANDIAN Vs. A ABITHA BEGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above civil revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.4.2000 made in RCA No.4 of 1998 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the Court of Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga thereby confirming the fair and decretal order dated 24.4.1998 made in RCOP No.5 of 1997 by the Rent Controller and the Court of Principal District Munsif, Sivaganga.

(2.) AN application has been filed by the petitioner/landlady before the Rent Controller seeking eviction of the respondent/tenant from the premises bearing door No.25 in Ward No.16, Nehru Bazaar of Sivaganga town under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'). The averments of the petition are that the petition property was originally belonging to and in enjoyment of one Abdul Azeez and the appellant became the lessee under him on a monthly rent of Rs.300; that while so, on 9.11.1995, the respondent/landlord purchased the petition property from the said Abdul Azeez for proper consideration under a registered sale deed dated 9.11.1995; that her husband is running a grocery shop opposite to the petition property, in door No.263 for the last nine years occupying the same on a monthly rent of Rs.450; that it was revealed that the property was required for her own use and occupation, further demanding a monthly rent of Rs.450; that the respondent/tenant in spite of having agreed to the proposal, did not pay the rent as promised. Further more, since the building is required for her own purpose of her husband running a grocery shop, the rent control application has been filed before the rent controller.

(3.) DURING arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner/tenant would submit that the petition premises is a non-residential building; that he is a tailor and is running a tailoring shop in the petition property; that he got inducted into possession of the property as tenant in the year 1970 by the father of PW2; that when PW2 demanded higher rent in or about 1995, he refused and consequently, PW2 started refusing to receive the rents for October, November and December 1995, but indulged in unlawful acts of evicting the lawful tenant by third degree methods, and hence, he filed the suit in O.S.No.56 of 1996 for not evicting him unless by the procedures established by law; that the tenant was depositing his rent without any default in the I.A. in the suit; that none had contested the matter and they allowed the suit to be decreed ex parte on 10.1.1997; that thereafter on 24.6.1997, the present RCOP No.5 of 1997 had been filed by the respondent/landlady stating that she became the owner by sale deed dated 9.11.1995 and the said purchase might have been known to the petitioner/tenant.