S SUGUMARAN Vs. SEENU ALIAS NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TENANT in HR.C.O.P. 110 of 1995 on the file of Rent Controller, Pondicherry is the revision petitioner herein.

(2.) SCHEDULED premises originally belonged to one Balamirutham under whom petitioner became tenant. Balamirutham executed a settlement deed in favour of her daughter Rohini @ Usha and thereafter lease deed was also executed in favour of Rohini @ Usha as evidenced by Ex. R4 dated 11.4.1984. While the tenancy was subsisting, landlord herein purchased the schedule premises from Rohini @ Usha as per Exs. P5 and P6 dated 11.12.1992 and 14.12.1992 respectively for valid consideration. It is also the case of landlord that tenant was not paying rent for some time and landlord herein paid entire rent arrears to Rohini who in turn executed Ex. P7 deed dated 14.12.1992 and conveyed the right to realise the same and also future rent from the tenant. It is the further case that tenant attorned tenancy in favour of landlord by paying monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/- and thereafter he committed wilful default. Landlord sent a notice demanding rent arrears and also wanted to get vacant possession for his own occupation. According to landlord, he is doing business in Motor oil Lubricants in the rented premises and landlord of that premises asked him to vacate that building and he is in dire need to occupy the scheduled premises. When tenant refused to vacate the premises which he has expressed in his reply, present application was filed for eviction.

(3.) IT is against the said judgment, tenant has come with this revision petition under Section 25 of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.