K VENKATARAMANI Vs. S ARAVAMUTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is the petitioner. The respondents-landlords filed apetition in R. C. 0. P. No. 7 of -1979 for an order of eviction against the petitioner under Sections 10 (2) (i) and 10(3) (a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) According to the case of the respondents the property in the occupation of the petitioner belonged to the joint family of respondents I to 3, their father and brother one deceased Gopalan. In 19o,the father renounced the world and became an ascetic and also released his share in the property in favour of his sons, the respondents 1 to 3 herein and Gopalan. Gopalan, the brother of respondents 1 to 3 and husband of the fourth respondent and father of respondents 5 and 6, died subsequently and the respondents became the owners of the property in question. The petitioner, according to the case of the respondents, became a tenant in respect of this property through one Venkatanathan. On an earlier occasion, an application for eviction in R. C. 0. P. No 14 of 1971 was filed by the first respondent herein against Venkatanathan since deceased, and the petitioner on the ground of willful default and that the petitioner is a sub-lessee under Venkatanathan and the application for eviction was allowed by the Rent Controller and the order was affirmed in appeal. But in C. R. P. No. 2418 of 1973, it was held that the petitioner is a direct tenant of the first respondent and others. The respondents stated that the mother of respondents 1 to 3 is an old pious, religious and orthodox lady and lag anxious to spend the evening of her life at Kumbakonam with a view to take dips in the holy Cauvery and have the worship of the deity in the temple in order to secure salvation for her soul. It was also the further case of the respondents that the third respondent had been insaneior some years and that the doctors had advised that his recovery would be faster if there is a change of climate and environment and, therefore, the respondents bona fide needed the premises in the occupation of the petitioner for these purposes. The respondents further stated that in spite of the adjudication in C. R. P. No. 2418 of 1973, the petitioner did not pay any rent from October 1973 till the end of 1978, though the tenancy commenced from May 1970 onwards and the default in the payment of rents committ4 by the petitioner was characterised as willful default. The respondents also stated that as regards the advance of Rs. 2,000/'- which was directed by the order in C. R. P. No. 2418 of 1973 to be adjusted against the rents payable by the petitioner, it could not be so done because the petitioner instituted a suit in 0. S. No. 238 of 1973, District Munsif's Court, Kumbakonam, against Venkatanathan and the first respondent herein and also obtained a decree against the said Venkatanathan. Alleging that in spite of several notices, the petitioner had not paid the rents and that such non-payment was willful, the respondents filed the application for eviction as, aforesaid under Sections 1.0 (2)''M and 10 (3) (a) (i) of the Act.

(2.) The petitioner, while accepting the status of the first respondent as landlord, disputed that of the respondents 2 to 6. According to the case of the petitioner, Venkatanathan, an agent of the first respondent required a sum of Rupees 2,000/- to be given as advance to be adjusted towards the future rents for the purpose of carrying out repairs to the building and that when the building was so let out in 1970, top petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. But Venkatanathan did not effect any repair, nor did he provide water tap- connection as optimized. In addition, the petitioner also claimed that municipal taxes, repair charges, water tap connection charges, additional electric deposits, etc. have all been paid by him and these amounts as well as the amount of Rs. 2,000/- have to be adjusted as against the rents payable by the petitioner. Referring to the proceedings initiated on the former occasion in R. C. - 0. P. No. 14 of 1971 by the Ist respondent herein, the petitioner stated that it was only on account of the stand taken by the first respondent regarding the advance amount of Rupees 2,000/-, the petitioner was obliged to institute the suit in 0. S. No. 238 of 1973 and obtained a decree against Venkatanathan and claimed that the costs in that suit has also to be adjusted towards the rent. The petitioner appended the details of the amounts paid and expenses incurred by him and according to this statement, the rent payable by the petitioner for the period in question would be Rs. 10,600/-, while the amounts expended by him in respect of the house in the payment of property taxes, water tap connection charges, repair charges, additional electric 1eposit, etc. totaled up to Rs. 10,928.46. In other words, the petitioner pleaded that there was an excess amount in a sum of Rupees 328.46 P. to his credit which had to be adjusted towards the rent for future months. The petitioner, therefore, contended that there was no question of any default much less wilful default in the payment of rents as claimed by the respondents. The requirement by the respondents of the premises in question for the purpose of the mother of the respondents 1 to 3 as well as for accommodating the third respondent was stated to be not bona fide. An objection that the petition for eviction is also bad for disjoined of- respondents 2 to 6 who are not landlords was also taken. On these grounds, the petitioner prayed for. the dismissal of the application for eviction filed by the respondents.

(3.) The learned Rent Controller (District Munsif), Kumbakonam, on a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, held that the application filed by the respondents is maintainable and that the claim of adjustment made by the petitioner in respect of all the amounts detailed in the counter cannot be allowed and that even deducting such adjustable and allowable amounts as have been claimed by the petitioner, the petitioner owes considerable amounts to the respondents and that there was no justification whatever for the non-payment of the rents ever since the date of inception of the tenancy and that -such non-payment of the rents, in the circumstances of the case, would be nothing but willful. On the question whether the resp6ndents have established that they bona fide require the premises in the occupation of the petitioner, the Rent Controller took into account the circumstances of the case and on the evidence concluded that the respondents have established that they bona fide require the building for accommodating their mother. on these conclusions, an order for eviction was passed against the petitioner. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner preferred an appeal in C. M. A- No. 43 of 1979 to the Appellate Authority (Sub Court) Kumbakonam. The Appellate Authority, on a consideration of the stand taken by the petitioner in the reply notice issued by the petitioner as well as in the course of the proceedings in R. C. 0. P. No. 14 of 1.971, held that the application for eviction at the instance of the respondents was maintainable, as the petitioner had admitted that the respondents would be the landlords in respect of the property in his occupation. On the question bf willful default, the Appellate Authority held that certain amounts claimed by the petitioner by way of adjustment could not be so adjusted as the expenditure was incurred by the petitioner without the consent of the respondents and that even after adjusting some of the payments made by the petitioner, the petitioner had not satisfactorily explained the non-payment of the rents for several years after the commencement of the tenancy and in that view held that the petitioner had committed willful default in the payment of rents. As regards the bona fide requirement of the respondents, the Appellate Authority concluded that it had not been established that the third respondent is an insane person and that for the purpose of accommodating him and also for the purpose of enabling the mother of respondents I to 3 to spend. the evening of her life at Kumbakonam, the premises is required bona fide. In view of the conclusions arrived at on the question of willful default, the order for eviction passed by the Rent Controller was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.